Separation of powers

[ctmelvital]

Okay, I think this has been mentioned by Volpone somewhere but let's have a thread on it, too. I think it's a pretty good idea but further discussion is needed IMHO.

Now, normally you have your shiny executive, legislative and judicial branch. I'd say WF doesn't really need a legislative branch - that's the posters themselves. However, a seperation into a "judicial" and an "executive" branch seems like a good idea that might solve a couple problems we keep having (IF the judicial branch is respected enough).

The executive branch would obviously be the "mods" and the tech admins. The tech admins are somewhat special because you can't exactly elect them (well, I guess you could but we don't really want incompetent people doing the job) - the mods, you probably could.

Same goes for the judicial branch - in Switzerland that one's voted for by parliament. Some more checks & balances but also means a weaker judicial branch. I'm not entirely sure about that yet. Probably something like 3 senior & respected members - but how do you objectively confirm that someone's suitable for the job? Again, democracy might seem like a good idea.

Finally - the whole idea of democracy. Generally, I think it's crap. And I don't think it's necessary. I think as long as you have people in charge that you can trust (which, for a long time, WF had IMO - at least to a certain degree - or maybe just nothing happened that highlighted those character traits I currently find so very undesirable in the administration) and a majority of people trust them - well, no big deal. Sure, you could have Elwood sell the board (for me personally that would do a great deal to improve the board again - as well as get rid of some of the staff, not all of them but some and make sure ALL PMs are deleted and NEVER AGAIN read by anyone other then the sender and the recepient). Alternatively, I'm still thinking the idea of having some form of independent organisation buy WF is a nice idea. Obviously, not Wordforge Inc. but I'm sure there's a whole bunch of legal non-profit entities.
Make it so people can donate anonymously or have people pay a mandatory yearly fee or a one-time fee - personally I think anonymous donations are the way to go. No more rights associated with donating but I'm pretty sure we could get something going (considering how Summerteeth got 1000£ for her cancer run - sure, that's a more honourable cause but it still means people are willing to spend money). Now, no one can stop people from saying that they donated but it shouldn't make a difference IMO. :shrug:

Anyway, thoughts? Especially on how those branches should look and about the whole aspect of paying for stuff.

 

[guldulac]

Yep, an independent judicial review is mandatory, with or without democracy. And I don't particularly think democracy is the way to go for a BBS, but there should be somebody who can overule a warning or ban that is not connected to the day to day running of the place.

 

[DarthSikle]

You are all a bunch of dumb niggers.

 

[faceman]

I don't think judicial branches should be voted on. Otherwise they risk pandering to politics - something they're supposed to ignore when deciding issues based on the law.

But that's just the lawyer talking.

The problem is that would mean executive appointment - which is how it is in the US. However, in the US we get a new executive every 4 (8?) years.

Now if we could somehow have a rotating and elected appointing member, that could take care of that problem.

 

[Voice of Virtue]

Total absolute dictatorship is the only answer if you want the trains to run on tme.

 

[Tamar_Garish]

Yep, an independent judicial review is mandatory, with or without democracy. And I don't particularly think democracy is the way to go for a BBS, but there should be somebody who can overule a warning or ban that is not connected to the day to day running of the place.

Once someone has the power to over-rule warnings they are connected to the day to day running of a place.

People want to make things more complex when it should be made more simple IMO.

 

[Turd]

A judicial branch isn't a bad idea at all, as long as those who sit on it never get involved in anything else. I agree that they don't need to be elected since their purpose is not decision making, but reviewing decisions based on the rules and nothing else.

 

[guldulac]

Once someone has the power to over-rule warnings they are connected to the day to day running of a place.

People want to make things more complex when it should be made more simple IMO.

I disagree -- they have a different job. First, they would only act when a request is made. They wouldn't have A-51 access, they wouldn't have power to warn, or any of the other aspects of board management. They would simply rule on warning/ban appeals.

Operationally, it would look something like this:

• Set up an appeals forum
• Banned members are banned from all but this forum
• Appeals are made in it but must be initiated by the member in question (so if I start a thread complaining about a warning to somebody else, that thread is locked, deleted, etc.)
• Once an appeal is made, other members can way in with pros and cons, but strict rules of behavior are enforceable
• The Judicial Mods can then debate the case in their own private forum, after which a decision is posted in the appeals thread.
• Elwood can chose to accept or reject the decision (he retains owner's perogative)
• Admin staff carry out the ruling

I don't care particularly how the judicials are selected, so long as they change on a staggered schedule.

 

[headvoid]

I think this idea to run Wordforge is brilliant, but you need more committees, perhaps a few more panels as well.

 

[Turd]

I think this idea to run Wordforge is brilliant, but you need more committees, perhaps a few more panels as well.

We need a full frakking legislature!

 

[Volpone]

I was doing my laundry today and BAM! it hit me. I understand the model.

There are parallels to a three-branch system of government but because it is ultimately not a democracy--or even a republic--where the chief executive is elected, things work a little different.

As is discussed, the moderators are not the legislature, they are the executive. The legislature is the general posting body. But moderators are more akin to the cabinet than to governors or mayors. The owner of the board should have the right to select moderators of his choosing--same goes for the "judges". But like the cabinet and the supreme court, the staff of the board should be confirmed by the legislature.

The only place where the analogy falls down for me is that I think the moderators should have an ability to overrule the board owner in extreme cases. If they think things are running contrary to the welfare of the board, they need to be able to check the owner, who has largely absolute power.

I dunno if that power means moderators should be elected after all or not...:shrug:

 

[Zombie]

We need a full frakking legislature!

It would be like the EU only a thousand times worse!!!!! :lol:

 

[Zombie]

The only place where the analogy falls down for me is that I think the moderators should have an ability to overrule the board owner in extreme cases. If they think things are running contrary to the welfare of the board, they need to be able to check the owner, who has largely absolute power.

Yeah unless you have a real life contract stating otherwise then the legal owner can not ever be checked becasue he can simply lock everyone out and close up shop.