Re: Office Chatter
by
Eurtek at 2007-02-22 22:28:42
M-kay, thanks for the feedback... A few notes.
The Judiciary I thought should be brought into existence in case of borderline cases or fuzzy wording. I can change the exact use to being one of abuse of the spirit of the rules. This is basically to act as a safety net for if anything obnoxious but unintended gets passed.
Fine Polishing I do feel should exist-- Many proposals have been found to have minor mistakes that require the entire thing to re-do the runs of proposal. The current 'veto' thing he has I don't see as necessarily bad, it simply makes the position more powerful. It is a position re-elected weekly, and if someone is blocking a well-liked law, they probably won't hold the position for long. I do think there should be a better way of handling the time on the re-submittal though. Would it be better to have it put on a 3 day hold after revising, during which time any player may appeal to the judiciary if they believe the changes not in the spirit of the original draft?
Weights and Balances need some level of power, but I can understand the apprehension involving the number of changed e could make. Would it seem better if it was 5 values in the rules may be changed up to 10% per week, and any integers must remain as integers? (to avoid non-integers in things that don't make sense with floats.)
For the presidency, I will add clauses to make sure taxes are changeable and money transfers are of chosen amounts. When it comes to taxes they can levy, I'm thinking any new tax type(i.e. what action triggers a tax) might have to be authorized by the Judiciary, and I might want to put a limit on changes to tax settings per week(probably 5). Does that sound better?
I'll make sure to reword to protect the null space.
Replies