Government Change Discussion

Now that Nick-Sama’s retired, we need to edit the government to fill this void. So please comment your idea for a new governmental system, or if we should keep it the way it is and just fill Nick’s position, or whatever your idea may be. We will have a public vote/brainstorm at a later date. Also comment if you have any questions about the proposed systems. After a few days we will put this to a vote.

  1. Have a Post-Jason like government, where we will have 3 Clan Leaders (The 2 GA’s as of now, + a 3rd member chosen by the people) that will check and balance each other, as well as for support should the public attack one of the 3. This way power does not rest in the hands of any one member, seeing as I doubt any of us trust anyone like that without Nick here. These 3 will work together to fill the void left by Nick-Sama, the FG beneath them will remain in tact. After this is voted into place, a new vote may be held to decide whether to promote the Supremes to GA’s and COO’s to Supremes to fill that void, which will require either promotion of lower ranks to COO’s, or the abolition of the COO rank, seeing as there will be no more FG to promote to it. Or to abolish either the GA or COO ranks altogether (no-one’s job is in danger, stop sweating).
  2. Keep the system the same way it is- 1 CL, 1 or 2 GAs, 3 Supremes, and 2 (with potential for more) COOs.
  3. Turn the FG into a Council type government. Here all FG ranks become equal, and no one has more authority over the other. But to incorporate a presidency-esque dealio, we will have an elected official join the council for maybe a month or so; these officials can be a part of the council and voice their opinions as the people’s voice.

If need be, though it will be harder, we can change again. The future is limitless.

[Bravo] Please can we have more than “I like this one.” I want to know why you like that option the best. I also fixed a typo and grammatical error *pats self on back*

[Bravo] I removed part of option 3 and made it a statement below in bold as this option was combined with the original option 3 with one of Rinzler’s statements. Rinzler didn’t mean that we SHOULD go back to the original government (what we have now), he meant that we can revert to it after we change. As he said, the future is limitless.

[Jeep] Bravo, Banz came up with option 3, not rinz.

[Bravo] I know, Jeep, but you combined Banz’s #3 with one of Rinz’s statements


157 thoughts on “Government Change Discussion

    1. I like your input. Your input says everything, what you like, why you like it, your suggestion, so on and so forth. I want every comment to be like this. This comment? If it was a person I would have buttsex with it. I want you to act like this all the time, Super, you will get wherever you want and make a lot of friends as long as you say “I like _______” thank you so much, I applaud.


    2. the reason why I like Option 3 so much Bravo is because it gives the non-FG members a voice among a council, technically everyone’s equal and everyone can overrule what someone else wants with a majority vote.

      1. which means that if someone went mad with power there’s always a bunch of people that can stop him before he/she does anything crazy. it’s a very slow but versatile way of government.

      2. ” technically everyone’s equal and everyone can overrule what someone else wants with a majority vote.”

        That’s how every single one of the systems is….

    1. Thank you so much. I’m glad that you told us that it’s open to interpretation without telling us yours. It puts me on the edge, it makes me want to know more. I’m doing this from now on, I’m going to tell everyone that everything is open to interpretation without telling them what I think about it.

      9/10 comment
      10/10 comment with rice

  1. I have issues with 3.

    1. FG ranks become equal? Who’s going to keep law and order among them? You can’t say the president, because we’re not giving an elected member main owner and adminship- he’d be incapable of enforcing anything.
    2. We just had this argument about presidents, they suck. It was eliminated for a reason, let the executive branch die a natural death already, put the defibrillators down.
    3. Why would you change the government just to change it back?

    1. 1. I suggested that we put Banana or Nighthawk (or myself) as a presiding member of the council, like the Vice President to America’s Senate or the Speaker of the House to the House of Representatives.
      2. Presidents don’t suck, if the majority of the people don’t agree with the FG, but the FG don’t like it, then how would a law be made?
      3. We don’t have to change it back, “the future is limitless” can be applied to anything, this is one of the 3 arguments that aren’t debatable, it’s just something Rinzler said.

      1. ” I suggested that we put Banana or Nighthawk (or myself) as a presiding member of the council,”

        Why are all of your comments mentioning yourself getting a higher rank…? And that still sounds like a leader.

        “Presidents don’t suck, if the majority of the people don’t agree with the FG, but the FG don’t like it, then how would a law be made?”

        The law is made whether the FG like it or not.

  2. Jeep, you may or may not have intended this but please don’t try to subliminally trick the public into thinking that #1 is the best with the coloring of the text, someone please change that.


    I like how it is right now but I want to add in a presidency eventually. I’m leaning towards option #2 but option #3 sounds nice as well but I’d like to add in a presiding member of the council (if we were to do option 3), like the Vice President to the Senate or Speaker of the House to the House of Representatives. Option 2 is, in my opinion, the best. Frankly, I don’t like drastic change and I believe that our current system right-now is near perfect except that I believe I should trade positions with Ajbenius and that we should implement a presidency. Option 1 in my opinion is the worst out of the 3. It removes the need for the other FG members and in doing so doesn’t leave any room for a presidency. It’s more of a dictatorship than anything, at least with #2 and #3 there’s room for argument and #1 we will be appointing the leaders FOR LIFE. That is something we can’t mess up (if we were to choose option 1).

    1. “Jeep, you may or may not have intended this but please don’t try to subliminally trick the public into thinking that #1 is the best with the coloring of the text, someone please change that.”


      I really don’t understand the obsession with the presidency, it’s obsolete with the rights that the members have, and the presidents were almost always disasters. Why try to remake something we destroyed.

      “except that I believe I should trade positions with Ajbenius”

      Did you just go there-

      “It removes the need for the other FG members”

      No more than having Nick removed the need for the FG- no more than having FG removes the need for Generals.

      “in doing so doesn’t leave any room for a presidency.”

      Because the presidency is a bad idea.

      ” It’s more of a dictatorship than anything,”

      Why do people spam that word, you still have all the rights that you have now, you still have all the power you have, no-one can break laws, there’s just 3 mini-nicks

      “#1 we will be appointing the leaders FOR LIFE.”

      Or until people get sick and tired of them and replace them…. what’s the difference between this and leaving Banz and Eagle as GA’s? Option 2 will have the same issue.

      1. Thank you for giving me permission to change the color of the text of your post. I caught ya, you sneaky ninja.

        Yes I just went there with AJ.

        Option 1 has 3 leaders and Option 2 has less than 3. 3 is more than the amount of Supremes and COOs and if you want to add more FG to make it 3 each to that I say that’s a bad idea, too many owners and too many leaders gets nothing done and I trust all of the FG (except for one guy) to make rational decisions atm. IF you make the argument saying adding one guy isn’t a big deal then why have option #1?

        I like the presidency because it gives the members a chance to have a bigger say in the government.

        The GAs and CLs are allowed to break the law. That’s actually a law.

        1. It’s the same number of Supremes that we have right now, and only one more GA. There are still more FG members than the 3. We outnumbered Nick 7 to 1.
          The members have a huge say in government, but they don’t excercise the rights that they have. That’s their fault.

          Pretty sure that only applied to the CL, and I would like to remove that law once it goes through.

        1. Bill, never tell me that I can’t follow site protocol when you act inappropriately. You wanna be snappy to me, I’ll snap back.

          47. Comments are to be neither edited nor deleted, except for the following exceptions: You may edit out profanity….

      2. “Why do people spam that word, you still have all the rights that you have now, you still have all the power you have, no-one can break laws, there’s just 3 mini-nicks”

        Don’t pretend that the FG hasn’t abused before.

        1. The point is, the 3 leaders will be able to do whatever they want. Let’s pretend that Jason was voted to be a leader, what would he have to do to get impeached? A LOT, not just a lot of evidence of abuse but he would have to betray GSA. If we go with option 1, and we fuck up, it’s going to take A LOT to make up for it.

        2. The problem with your argument is that the others do the exact same thing.

          2. has Banz and Eagle as the overlords, and you can’t say we trust them already because they’d be 2 of the 3 in #1.

          3 has some elected guy overtop of the FG that can’t be questioned.

        3. 2. Eagle might not be one of the GAs he’s very inactive.
          3. It’s going to be Banana or Nighthawk, without a doubt. That’s who I would vote for and that’s what the public will vote for. Like, seriously.

        4. Didn’t the vote to replace him just fail? He’s the GA for the forseeable future.

          You hope, y’all be tryin’ to bring back Jason. How’s THAT gonna go. And it still doesn’t fix the problem btw.

  3. Id say option 1 is optimal, though we need to work out those variables.
    I say, we keep all the ranks pretty much how they are, but change around the GAs and whatever rank is at the head of the system. (Maybe make the ‘council’ the GAs, and adjust them appropriately.)

    As for adjusting ranks, we’ll have to choose wisely who to round up, and who to round down-

    1. Well, there’s only 3 Supremes at the moment, assuming one of them is ranked up, (the most likely scenario) then that’ll leave 2 Supremes to fill the 2 GA spots, and 2 COO’s to replace those 2 supremes. No-one will be rounded down.

        1. Eagle, and Banana will become 2 of the 3 leaders, the 3rd will be elected by popular vote. The 2 remaining supremes may or may not be promoted to GA’s, and the remaining COO’s may or may not be promoted to supremes.

    1. I think this is the best comment. It completely contributes to the decision that is to be made at-hand and will sway everyone’s approach towards this new, intimidating, controversial topic. I am glad we have a member like this. I nominate Gingex to be the new clan leader–I want him to be the ONLY leader. We NEED someone with as much verbal power as a man like this who can lead a nation with such a powerful speech such as the one above.

      Oh only if we had more members like you. Please continue to lead by example.

  4. Perhaps you should have your ideas actually ready instead of ‘attempting to fire a half built gun’ because that usually backfires.

    1. Btw, I like how it is either A. FG is in charge. B. FG is in charge. Or C. FG is in charge.

      Perhaps a forth option being “democracy” (oh so scandalous, going back to our roots which interestingly was our government during our “golden age”) should be available

      1. FG the highest ranks, they are the guiders of the clan. There’s a President of the United states, there are generals, there are Senates. Someone has to be the head.

    2. @ninja I am suggesting the old system we had before Jason/vinryan (whichever of the two had control of the account) started changing GSA from voting for or against to make a law to just make a law and if you don’t like it then after it’s a thing try to get rid of it (oh, wait, wasn’t there a law he -either of them- made where non-FG could not challenge the FG? Because I remember something like that being a thing.)

      @jeep Didnt the Athenians have a direct democracy, and they were the main competitor with the spartains, who had a two king system (middle ground between 1s three leaders and 2s one leader) which had a twenty eight member council (number 3 anyone) that limited their power (like you “did” (not really, you mainly just fell into line, at least until nick came along) with Jason/vinryan

      1. there would still be someone in charge of army, in charge of law enforcement, ect.

        What do you mean I “fell in line” ?

    3. You as in FG. But if you want to get into that train of thought, what happened to cause pro-FG jeep to replace pro-democracy jeep?

      1. He’s sitting here having the people decide who leads the clan, having the people decide what government type they want, and having the people decide who to demote.
        Pro-Democracy Jeep hasn’t left. You’re just looking through dark colored glasses.

    4. The judas kiss part? It’s a biblical reference (which you should get, no need to say why) or if you mean its too cryptic, that happens when what you say has layer upon layer of meanings.

  5. I believe it’s time to make my opinion public.

    My opinion on #1
    I lean further towards this Government the more I put thought into the whole idea. This idea has worked before, if it didn’t I wouldn’t think Jeep would make it a big deal. I trust his judgement and I do not trust any one person with Nick’s power, so an Oligarchical-esque leadership role would better benefit GSA. With 3 there can be no stalemate if 1 disagrees with the other.

    My opinion on #2
    This is a bad idea all-around. The system we have now is basically just making me leader because no other GA is active on-site yet.

    My opinion on #3
    This was my idea and this is my second choice if #1 were to fail. Yeah, this would equal out the FG while having maybe one head of the council. Along with that there would be a member elected every month to be a council member so that the members can have a louder voice.

    1. I agree. Though, theres one problem that needs to be adress- Who gets site admin, main owner, etc.?
      Perhaps appoint a “superintendent” for each role- Or something.

        1. What’s wrong with that? If an outside AFK party created the site and chat, then none of the FG can go rogue.

        1. What do we need to do that needs to be done that can’t be done without Nick?

        1. He can’t do that, that’d be hypocritical, he’s complaining about how it’s dangerous to elect new people to leadership roles~

  6. You forgot option 4: Cede GSA to Gigoto and live under the reign of his evil empire.
    Btw, the evil empire now has free cookies and milk…but still oppression. It’s not perfect but I think we’re focusing on what matters.

    1. Error: Your cookies are made with vanilla. That’s false advertising. White cannot represent evil unless you’re in Asia.

  7. Option 3

    I don’t think anyone is ready yet to be CL, and a new member of the council every once in a while will bring some variation to the table.

    Although I would advise on having an “Overseer” to make sure none of the FG go corrupt. The ranking of a CL with the power of a Council Member perhaps.

        1. Well then you have a totally random person with pretty much all the power, what’s even the point then?

      1. NUUUUU! Not orders!

        Well, our current government idea was functional…but…

        Did we not have a discussion about removing ranks? If we do Option 3, then it would only be logical to remove ranks as well.

        With Option 1…I did not enjoy the concept of the post Jason government, but ti worked well.

        Keeping the government as it is would be the deadlock decision…

        I vote 2…I can change my vote later…correct?

        1. This isn’t actually a vote, this is just for getting our opinions straight and yelling at eachother.

          May I ask why you’re afraid of the post-Jason government? I liked it. (sad)

  8. anyone from the FG. since i gave you this info, and since you probably want more, im gonna need you to pm me when you want this meeting to take place. ill be in the DF chat when your ready.

  9. I’d like to have option 2 if it’s either Nighthawk or Reaper Leading. When the FG, most of the time couldn’t agree on something….Nick….was there to be the deciding vote on the matter..the mediator and about 99.9% of the time, he made the right decision. I’m sure either of them could do the same if voted for CL.

    1. I really love your insight. Being one of our Grand Advisors I expected nothing less from you. I especially like how you put in your opinion as to why we should go with option #2 but remove the CL rank, and, I do, truly appreciate your insight as to why we should not choose the other two options. I appreciate it more that you called it option #2 as well instead of not calling what something is by its name. This comment, especially coming from someone with the highest rank at the moment, will sweep away the crowd and sway them towards your position of thinking. Your input really contributes a lot to this conversation and I’m glad that you are actually taking time out of your probably busy day to type this huge paragraph that expresses all of your feelings about this topic which has more than 100 comments. Out of all of them, I think this one is the best. I am glad that my superior could come up with something as intelligent as this, and I could only dream of saying or typing anything sub par with this new level of thinking. I think you really cracked the code here, Eagle. You’ve really raised the bar on this decision.

    2. I feel like we need a neutral party. One elected by the clan that gets the same, if not more amount of power as the GA’s, I believe they’re called, There’s a lot of distrust among the higher ups and it’d be useful to have a more level-headed unbiased third/second party in the leadership. That’s just my two cents though, take it as you will.

      1. The GA’s are relatively stryfe free. But that’s why system one has 3 GA’s, a deadlock is impossible. But you’re essentially saying to make a president that’s more powerful than the CL? I um—- bad idea.

    1. Nickman left, and right now we need a leader or multiple leaders. Going with option 1 makes 3 dictators that can support but keep each other in check. option 2 makes 1 dictator that can rule basically unchallenged unless all the people band together and form a revolution. Option 3 is the safest yet most inconvenient one, we won’t get much done that quickly and everyone in the FG will have an equal say, whether that is a good or bad thing

    1. You know what? I think that… this comment…

      No amount of sarcasm can describe how I feel about this comment. This is so irrelevant… I can’t even… Only more ellipses can save me…

      1. Bravo, these burns got old really fast. I think it’s time to stahp commenting on irrelevant posts.

  10. So it’s been more than a few days. Where’s this vote that was promised? I’m curious to see what the new government is going to be. (Unless I missed that post in which case, disregard or delete this comment)

    1. The comments have started dying down, but to be honest, I don’t have the time right now, I didn’t even log on here at all yesterday. Tonight’s not gonna be much better probably.

Write a Comment...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s