A Founderless Region?

[Sovereign Dixie]

 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"?

[Amy]

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.

[Myroria]

Or we could be fuerhers. What is that? That has a negative connotation? Nahhhh.....

[Gulliver]

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.

[The G Rebellion]

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.

[Amy]

I agree with TGR.

[Stellaris]

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.

[Zimmerwald]

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.

[Gulliver]

Oh, we're not "founders". We're just "the undersigned" 

[Amy]

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

[Eluvatar]

I see nothing wrong with the word "Founder" as long as the constitution or charter specifically does not give them any authority.

[Baltija]

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.

[The G Rebellion]

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.

[Gulliver]

Well, those who have read will know that the Constitution Mk III states:

The undersigned shall recieve no special privileges or immunities under the laws and Constitution of Taijitu.

[Eluvatar]

Yeh I'm all for that.