1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Senate Floor / Dgame Archive / Clerkship / Latest Posts

RE: Clerkship

swordinthestorm — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 03:33:06 GMT

vp clerk sounds good. it would add to the post although having warlords is not nessisary for a clerk where it is for vp. that could narrow the candidates

RE: Clerkship

Tosk — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:34:34 GMT

Radical idea just bounced off my brain pans ... have not given it the thought it may or may not deserve ... but unless I set it down I just might forget.

What about having the VP be "clerk" ... if we ever find a VP ... thoughts?

Adit:
Perhaps go back to the early days of the U.S. where the VP was the looser/runner up of the presidential election?

RE: Clerkship

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:37:40 GMT

[QUOTE]adit: I believe that the clerk should be voted in by the people in a general election[/QUOTE]
I feel the same on this side of the tracks. However, I'm also having the same feelings as zig, we could very well run into the problem that nobody wants the job or there is nobody reliable to serve in the position. As of now, I'm happy the SC will have yourself and zig running things because I know we won't run into problems down the road in regards to competency.

In regards to whoever gets the tie-breaking vote in Senate decisions, however, I can't say I'm too fond of the idea of the Clerk receiving it as I still feel the Princep should receive the vote. In my mind, keep the Senate's voting to the those in the Senate. Unless we're talking about the tie-breaking vote in the Princep's election, then I'm more in favor of the idea. Then again, I always thought it would be best to give that particular tie-breaking vote to the President, as the Princep is next in line to play the turns in the absence of a VP.

One thing I'll put my two scents in about, one evident curse I've observed regarding the clerk position, is once we even begin talks concerning the position, we just die out on the whole thing three or some odd days later until it's brought up again. Let's not let that happen here if we're serious about having this position made.

RE: Clerkship

Tosk — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:41:56 GMT

[quote]Alternatively we assume that a motion only passes if when a majority votes in a favour. Hence with the current setup, both justices need to agree for SC votes, and at least 2 senators for Senate votes.[/quote]

Yes, I was thinking along the lines of one vote for one against and one senator and his deputy absent, busy or delinquent.

[quote]Another way to settle a tie in the SC is by adapting the plan/ verdict so that both judges can live with it. Usually these issues will not be most urgent, but they may have far reaching effects, so I'd much prefer that 2 judges have to haggle to find the middle way, rather than introducing a third person into the equation to swing the vote. At least on default.[/quote]

I agree absolutely ... but if something holding up the game comes up, and one SJ goes missing, the other can not be a quorum so we have the impeachment > candidate
announcement > vote > half a month gone > more people drop out etc.
My vision is not perfect, I will admit, but it is quick and clean.

As far as nobody to reliably hold such a position ... Uhhhh Yea!

adit: I believe that the clerk should be voted in by the people in a general election

RE: Clerkship

Zigeuner — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:01:31 GMT

One problem I foresee with creating such a position is that nobody reliable will want it, so we may end up with:

a) nobody
b) nobody reliable

With so few people we should first check who is interested in positions such as VP, DD or clerk, then have them help outline the details. To create an open slot and wait for it to get filled seems... romantic at this point.

I had anticipated we'd have to reduce the SC to one (me), with a clerk as backup (Tosk). We could come up with a mechanism to prevent the SC from going bananas. Having said that...

[quote]The clerk should be the designated "tie breaking vote" whenever needed in either the SC[/quote]Another way to settle a tie in the SC is by adapting the plan/ verdict so that both judges can live with it. Usually these issues will not be most urgent, but they may have far reaching effects, so I'd much prefer that 2 judges have to haggle to find the middle way, rather than introducing a third person into the equation to swing the vote. At least on default.

RE: Clerkship

Comedy Dave — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:29:26 GMT

Deputy Dog ... :) I like it

So are we saying that the clerk is not just for the SC, but for the SC and the Senate? If so how would he be decided?

[quote]The clerk should be able to take care of any clerical duties that are not taken care of by the responsible official(s) as needed after 48 hours.[/quote]

Agree - that would help with us missing deadlines, like I did with the cut off date for recent SC Election campaigns... ;) (brushes that under carpet...)

[quote]The clerk should be the designated "tie breaking vote" whenever needed in either the SC or the senate.
This stems from my personal distaste for any system that could ostensibly give a single person 2 votes.
Either the President could make the call that a tie breaking vote was needed or the senate could call for the SC and the SC for the senate. But the clerk could not just take it upon him/herself to cast a vote.[/quote]

Ahh... the old tiebreak argument... don't think we ever got those votes through... ;)

The SC, with 2 justices is more likely to have tiebreaks. The senate is less likely, currently having 3 senators.

However, these numbers could change, so it makes sense to have some kind of ruling. Is there a conflict of interest if the clerk can vote on SC or Senate issues? (hoping tiebreaks would be rare).

Alternatively we assume that a motion only passes if when a majority votes in a favour. Hence with the current setup, both justices need to agree for SC votes, and at least 2 senators for Senate votes.

[quote]The clerk could also be empowered to "take the place" of a senator or a SCJ so business could continue while emergency elections were being held. The clerk could NEVER hold two empowered temporary position's at any time. Again either the president could empower the clerk or the senate for the SC and SC for senate.[/quote]

There are absence laws around the Senate. Senate deputies can hold the fort when a Senator is on holiday, or removed due to absence, until a replacement is elected in. We do need some concept of deputies for the Supreme Court, hence the Clerk could serve as a replacement Justice where a Justice is absent...

[quote]There would possibly be times when the clerk would wield some power in the game but, hopefully, this would be few and far between ... after all we really just need someone to keep the woodwork polished and take out the trash each day ...[/quote]

Agree :)

RE: Clerkship

Tosk — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 03:58:56 GMT

Ok, time to get all verbose.

As I personally coveted a clerk position I have been reluctant to offer a lot of input on what I thought a clerk should be/do in our game.
However, as I am now running for a elected office, and therefore, if elected, would be ineligible for the clerk position, I feel less reluctant to complete my vision of the clerk position.

The clerk should be able to take care of any clerical duties that are not taken care of by the responsible official(s) as needed after 48 hours.

The clerk should be the designated "tie breaking vote" whenever needed in either the SC or the senate.
This stems from my personal distaste for any system that could ostensibly give a single person 2 votes.
Either the President could make the call that a tie breaking vote was needed or the senate could call for the SC and the SC for the senate. But the clerk could not just take it upon him/herself to cast a vote.

The clerk could also be empowered to "take the place" of a senator or a SCJ so business could continue while emergency elections were being held. The clerk could NEVER hold two empowered temporary position's at any time. Again either the president could empower the clerk or the senate for the SC and SC for senate.

There would possibly be times when the clerk would wield some power in the game but, hopefully, this would be few and far between ... after all we really just need someone to keep the woodwork polished and take out the trash each day ...

In light of the above I still like Deputy Dog rather than clerk. :D:D:D

RE: Clerkship

psweetman1590 — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:33:19 GMT

Modified draft of the law:

The Supreme Court may appoint for itself a clerk to assist in those of its duties that qualify as strictly clerical in nature. The clerk shall serve for life, or until he resigns, or until he is dismissed by a majority vote of the Supreme Court, whichever may come first.

RE: Clerkship

Comedy Dave — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:27:22 GMT

Yep I agree with PSweet... who wants to draft the law... ;)

RE: Clerkship

psweetman1590 — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:55:35 GMT

I would propose that it be added that the clerk must be dismissed by a [i]majority[/i] of the SC. The way it is written above is somewhat vague. Other than that, I agree. :)

Clerkship

Zigeuner — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:35:59 GMT

Esteemed senators, I do not believe it is necessary to change the constitution in order to create a clerkship for Tosk (if his interest has not waned and fizzled and died out yet). We should be able to cover this in a law. I do not wish to put words or deeds in your mouths, but it would also be impolite to tell you to get on with it and leave it at that, so I offer here for close perusal a draft of a possible law:

[b]The Supreme Court may appoint for itself a clerk to assist in those of its duties that qualify as strictly clerical in nature. The clerk shall serve for life, or until he resigns, or until he is dismissed by the Supreme Court, whichever may come first. [/b]

Whaddayamean is that everything?! :P