Proposal: Holding tribune Members To A Higher Standard

So due to the recent controversy over Comrade Ler, I have decided to set fourth a proposal for a higher standard for tribunes.

1.) If A Tribune Is Given A Second Tier Warning, He Loses His Position As Tribune

Basically, if a tribune is giving a warning for a second tier (i think that's what its called) offense, he/she loses his position. That tribune will be replaced by either the third place candidate in the previous tribune election, or replaced by an immediate new election.

Alternatively, we could have vice tribunes who's sole purpose is to replace the current tribune if he/she were to resign, be impeached, or be removed due to acquiring a 2nd tier (or higher) warning/ban. How we will implement the vice tribune system is unclear at the moment, but maybe we could do it by having the 3rd and 4th place candidates in the election be the vice tribune. Or we could let two candidates run on the same ticket, one running for tribune and one tagging along as his/her vice tribune.

2.) Tribune Can Not Run For Re-election After Being Removed From Position

If a tribune is removed from his position as tribune due to what was mentioned above, he/she is not allowed to run for re-election in the future.

3.) Impeachment of Tribunes


If the people who elected the tribune feel he/she is not performing his duty correctly, they can make a vote for his/her impeachment. A member will create a poll, and if a 70% majority support the impeachment, then the tribune is removed, and the third place person, or the vice tribune will immediately take his/her place. There must be at least 50 votes cast for the results to be valid.

4.) Tribune Term Limit

A tribune should be allowed to serve no more than 2 times in a row, and no more than 3 times total.


So what do you guys think?

Here's what I think of this -I believe you are trying to capitalize off the issue, and blow it out of proportion in order to gain popularity in the election. The fact is, it really isn't a big issue - I have -NEVER- come close to abusing my powers, even when I've snapped in the past. I've never even considered doing such a thing. I think it is fairly obvious by the wording, and style of your posts that you are trying to fear monger here - And I find it pretty disgusting that you would use this whole issue, at my expense as a way to promote your campaign. It's pretty low.

Also, need it be mentioned that I tried to pass pretty much all of these things, albeit worded differently during my last two terms? Hell, I'm all for restricting tribune powers.

Are you serious? You think this is a way to promote my campaign? I don't care if I get elected. This has nothing to do with the current election. It's not my fault that these issues surface around election time. I would NEVER do something specifically to play politics. I have been thinking about this since the last time this came around, and I finally got around to putting my thoughts together and propose this. Take it for what you will, but this is not just a move to gain popularity.

Yes, you are. You're proposing these things because you know it is a hot issue right now, and that it will sell - and people will be more likely to vote for you if you embrace it. If this whole issue hadn't have been vocalized, you wouldn't consider putting these things up, because 1 - You wouldn't have cared about any of it. 2 - Because it wouldn't gain you the popularity that this will.

In the end, I think these are good suggestions, and I fully support them - But don't try to bolster your campaign at my expense.

I thought the issue was dead, but since its not I decided to actually go through with my idea.

I want even thinking about my campaign when I wrote this. I can guarantee you this has nothing to do with my campaign. Like I said, I don't care if I get elected.

I'm not trying to do it at your expense. Like I said in the other thread, I don't have anything against you. It's just that I figured this issue needed to be addressed so there is less controversy over how the situation is handled.

Here's what I think. First of all we don't have enough members (especially ones interested in running) to impose term limits, most of all not allowing a tribune to be elected more than three times.

Secondly I do not think impeachment is a good idea. You guys need to be sure who you vote in in the first place. People would impeach tribunes not for actually breaking the rules or misconduct but because they don't like the way the tribune does things or they feel the tribune didn't cater to their needs or deliver exactly what they wanted them to. Often times you can't see that your tribunes are actually doing stuff or they do legitimate things that you dislike. Should have considered how they were and what they would probably do before electing them. Finally on this, it's only a two month term. If you don't like them then don't re-elect them and they'll be gone before long. If they actually do break the rules and conditions tribunes have to abide by we will handle it.

Third I do think vice tribunes, someone running with each candidate is a good idea. I have mentioned it in the past in fact.

I don't feel like debating with your logic right now. Point is, this was a low, and sly move on your behalf. Again, I have nothing against these proposals - I've supported all of these things in the past. If people are gonna buy this little act of yours, then whatever. Let them.

Who even cares about the tribunes anyway? Do they even do anything? As far is I'm concerned all they get are green names that make them feel special for a short period of time. It's like when Stalin gives out random titles in his crusaders king LP.

I see what you did there.
I'm not sure how you can accuse each other of trying to further your campaigns when you were the only people on the thread.

Yes some of them do in fact do things for the site. Fey for example was a great tribune, good enough in fact to get promoted to the blue name club. However we have also had tribunes who did jack shit.

This cause confliction...I must think

Great way to attack a rival to make yourself look better for the elections, Ler. See what I did there? Don't let paranoia get the better of you.
Sly didn't say you abused your powers, I don't know where you got that from. Power abuse would've netted you something much more than the (Temporary? Can't remember exactly) removal of your status and a warning.
The thing is that your running for tribute is somewhat controversial due to you completely snapping and breaking the rules (Which contained the wishing of death of others. No matter what the situation, I don't see how someone can't see this as "not a big issue").
This proposal would help clear up controversies like this. You were only the "inspiration" for this proposal, and I don't see how it's made to make you look bad in particular. If it were, though, it isn't working, at least not for me.

Anyway, for the proposal itself: I generally agree with it, with the exception of a few things:
3) I don't think any member should be able to just make the poll himself. I think it's best to have said member message a mod with his complain, and let them decide whether or not his complaint is valid enough to deserve such a poll.

4) Eventually, we're going to run out of people that can run for the position. Someone being re-elected probably means they are liked or do their job well. Restrictions, in that case, aren't needed.

I was also the only Tribune who actually did anything. I could count the amount of times RR posted in the mods corner on one hand, during both his terms. Plus, you guys didn't see the shit that went on in there. What I did was not at all unprovoked, it was a response to attacks kali had been laying out against me for almost a year. Anybody would snap given the conditions that I was under, it was nothing to do with my personality, or who I am.

Plus I never made a death threat against kali. That's a heap of shit. I said "The world would be a better place if you were to jump off a cliff" or something to those lines. That isn't a death threat.

Let's stay on topic with the proposal. It is a legitimate one and we shouldn't be discussing campaigns or Ler here.

I propose that we don't let overly emotional people that are prone to throw tantrums become tribunes. This is a serious proposal. We have to consider the mental stability of potential tribunes, to prevent people like ComradeLer getting in to the position in the first place. Then we wouldn't have to deal with this. I propose this because Ler is quite blatantly taking things too far. This is not because of his performance as a tribune or "how he handles things", this is because of the number of disputes he has gotten himself in to regarding the moderation of the forum. Simple as that. Note that it's not specifically Ler, but rather overly-dramatic emotional people. Ler was merely the inspiration for my ingenious idea.

Sly's proposals are perfectly reasonable though I doubt we really need impeachment and term limits at this point in time. Perhaps later, when we have more active members.

It's just a forum... What happens on here should have very little effect on you. I don't know what conditions you were under but it couldn't be that bad, or?

So, for now let's forget that you didn't respond to just about everything I posted, but okay.
I must admit I've been on the background for most of the tribune stuff, so I wouldn't know exactly what all the Tribunes did, but seeing as FeyBart is now a mod, your first sentence sounds off to me.
And of course, I don't know what was, is or will be going on in the Mods Corner, although it wasn't too hard to see Kali severely disliked you.

While I don't know the entirety of the situation, I'm not going to snap over an internet argument, and especially not in the way you did.

Excuse my, I started writing this before you posted this.

Yeah I was thinking about the problems allowing a member to post his own poll would cause. This would work.

I am willing to scrap the term limit.

Well let's drop it now and only discuss the idea.

Ok so I decided to scrap the tribune term limit idea. I'll leave it up there, but, like others have pointed out, we dont have enough active members at this point. I'll be more than willing to get rid of the impeachment idea as well if nobody wants it, because Chelsea and Toast did make a good point that there are not enough people and it is only 2 months.