Taijitu

Forum Meta => Archive => Taijitu Constitutional Convention => Topic started by: Sovereign Dixie on January 04, 2007, 09:22:02 AM

Title: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Sovereign Dixie on January 04, 2007, 09:22:02 AM

 I dunno about ya'll, but the word "founder" leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, and carries a very negative connotation in my mind. What do you guys think of a title subsitution, instead of founders, simply refering to ourselves as "Charter Members"?
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Amy on January 04, 2007, 09:27:57 AM
I am not sure.

I think you'll find that the word "Founder" has that effect because of the shitty ones that we have had to deal with before.

But we are nothing like that, and it will get to the point where we are happy and proud to be known as Founders.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Myroria on January 04, 2007, 12:02:21 PM
Or we could be fuerhers. What is that? That has a negative connotation? Nahhhh.....
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Gulliver on January 04, 2007, 02:40:34 PM
The Founders. By far the most important issue at hand here. In part, I left them out of Constitution Mk I as I was loath to place them above the law.

But one thing I can say for certain. We all here must  be prepared to let go. We're making this region not just for ourselves but for everyone, and we must not at all costs fall into an obsession over losing control and become what we are trying to stop. We must be ready to pass along that torch.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: The G Rebellion on January 04, 2007, 04:22:36 PM
That is in no way the plan Pragmia. This region isn't a hypocritical sham. It's the real deal. If a government is elected and wants to change things, that's fine. If a Founder doesn't like it, they wait till the next election and attempt to take back power democratically, if they don't win, they wait another term and so on. They do not dissolve legitimate Governments.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Amy on January 04, 2007, 06:39:29 PM
I agree with TGR.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Stellaris on January 04, 2007, 06:56:00 PM
I don't know how to put this but having a group of founders, even if known by another name, who can intervene because they came here first seems to be a dangerous path to take. The active Lexiconian community is all jumping ship but if we have a similair system to that failed region, even if with more trust worthy people, we shall be treading a tight rope.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Zimmerwald on January 04, 2007, 07:35:48 PM
I see little wrong with the title "Founder" per se.  It's when you give the Founder special powers and/or privileges that things get out of hand, as we have seen.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Gulliver on January 04, 2007, 07:57:04 PM
Oh, we're not "founders". We're just "the undersigned"  ;)
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Amy on January 04, 2007, 07:58:30 PM
See...I personally see nothing wrong with the wrong "Founder"....just as long as those using it do not abuse it like some we know ::)
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Eluvatar on January 04, 2007, 11:15:50 PM
I see nothing wrong with the word "Founder" as long as the constitution or charter specifically does not give them any authority.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Baltija on January 04, 2007, 11:20:18 PM
I don't think it really matters how they will be called. Fuehrer, Charter Member or Founder - same thing. It is just that power (or just too much of it) shouldn't be given to certain group.

My thoughts.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: The G Rebellion on January 04, 2007, 11:22:09 PM
Power is a dangerous thing. It should be granted by the people, to their government. For the first term, it is likely that the Founders will make up that Government, after we're capable, it's to the people.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Gulliver on January 05, 2007, 01:02:40 AM
Well, those who have read will know that the Constitution Mk III states:

Quote
The undersigned shall recieve no special privileges or immunities under the laws and Constitution of Taijitu.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Eluvatar on January 05, 2007, 03:41:30 AM
Yeh I'm all for that.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Stellaris on January 05, 2007, 05:19:50 PM
JUst make sure they have NO special powers, we don't want this region to collapse due to stupidity like the Lex is doing.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: The G Rebellion on January 05, 2007, 07:29:32 PM
This region is Founded to avoid that sort of thing completely. You were all tricked into believing you would have the chance to one day perhaps have power in The Lex, they showed you that was wrong.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Morthia on January 06, 2007, 04:42:32 PM
Well, seeing as Amy has basically given us TCM, I think that we can do something different. How about TCM being given to one person who pledges to intervene only where necessary?
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Eluvatar on January 06, 2007, 06:03:58 PM
There are 7 charter members who share control of The Crazy Monkeymen. However I believe the constitution we are drafting specifically denies them the power to use its regional controls except when the Delegate is under impeachment proceedings (when they are expected to remove Delegate access to the regional controls).
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: The G Rebellion on January 07, 2007, 02:32:36 PM
Or, of course, in the event of a threat to the delegacy from an outside force. Both of these are extenuating circumstances and I don't see them coming around.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Eluvatar on January 08, 2007, 02:44:09 AM
That's true, if someone other than the elected delegate is near taking the delegate's seat, the Founders should be allowed to turn off Delegacy controls if the Delegate isn't around at that time or unwilling to eject the nation. Perhaps they should even be authorized to eject it themselves if the Delegate isn't around.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Kanzac on January 09, 2007, 11:12:13 PM
*Kanzac Ledear Steps forward and pulls out his Foution pen and signs it*
I Hereby Delcre Kanzac A MEBER OF TAIJITU!
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Of Crazed on January 12, 2007, 03:05:54 AM
I personally dont like the term founder in this region.  Is it just me or does the word reak of Lexiconian Hypocrisy?  Dont get me wrong, I get we have a founder nation, but really that can be left to one or two people. (Elu and TCM come to mind).  As far as on the forums, the way every one has been preaching about how we are not like the Lexicon, I believe it is best to leave this term behind us.
Title: Re: A Founderless Region?
Post by: Romanar on January 12, 2007, 03:28:02 AM
The terminology doesn't bother me, as long as they don't become tyrants.