!IMPORTANT! INGSOC's Party Constitution

The growth of the party is continuing at a fast speed, and i think its time we layed out specific rules about what our party is, and what it stands for. --NOTE-- THIS WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY BIG BROTHER BEFORE IT COMES INTO AFFECT

1.) INGSOC has a Hierarchy - Party President, Second and Third. All other members are equal, and have the same voice as each other, and will always be valued no more or no less then another.
2.) the INGSOC leader when elected earns the title "Big Brother". He/she may choose to insist on being referred to this if they so please.
3.) Big Brother's word is truth. He/she is never wrong. Members may disagree with Big Brother, but then they are disagreeing with facts.
4.) Other party members may suggest anything to the party, and they WILL be listened to. Your opinion is never wrong (unless it conflicts with the 3rd rule)
5.)The Second and Third in command are "Vice Party President" and "Deputy Vice Party President" (VPP and DVPP). They are appointed by Big Brother and can be changed at Big Brother's will. The PP, VPP and DVPP are known as "the inner party"
6.) Those wishing to run as PP, will be expected to have been a party member for at least a month, been an active party member both in game in the forums, and have proven there loyalty and dedication to the party in some form or another. Failure to meet these points will be seen as bad character and joke candidacy.
7.) INGSOC values the worker. Those that work for the party's companys for low or minimum wage will be a show of good faith to the party and will be seen in a good light.
8.)There are 4 parts to INGSOC: The Ministry of Truth (minitrue), a collection of party newspapers about the goings on in INGSOC. The Ministry of Plenty (miniplent), a party organization that runs companys for the masses. The Ministry of Love (miniluv) that maintains and observes the rule-following in the party, And the Ministry of Peace (minipax) that concerns itself with party campaigns and advertisements.
9.) The party follows a far-left totalitarian ideology, with heavy emphasis on state intervention and ownership.
10.) Enemys of the party have always been enemys, and friends have always been friends.
11.) To break any of these rules is to commit "thought-crime" or "crime-speak" and will reflect poorly on the individual.
12.) Anyone who has read George Oswell's "1984" is hereby a "dude" and can be referred to as such by others.
13.) Please remember Erepublik is just a game, and should not be taken too seriously - Just have fun!
14.) The Party Constitution can only be changed if ALL the inner party and a majority of the party members agree to it.

And Thus, INGSOC was truly born
Suggested by Harry Brownn, DVPP or INGSOC

exellent work DVPP, and I'd also like to take this time to welcome a new party member Oceania 001 (I have assurences he will join when he reaches level 7)!

Nice Work!

It's great to eventually have a constitution

I'm a bit worried about point 3 (the big brother's word is final one, anyway). Though I understand that your party has strong roots in 1984 (I've read it: bestow dudeship on me please ) and is totalitarian, if you can't disagree with the leader, that can potentially lead to problems if big brother makes a mistake in policy, and also makes debate rather more difficult if big brother is participating.
Obviously I'm not in INGSOC, and thus don't appreciate the way the party works as well as you do, but I do think that this point will, certainly when INGSOC becomes bigger, be a limiting factor in debate and policy making for your party. Just an opinion, mind...

You don't have to disagree with BB as such, merely suggest potential difficulties if they make sense then I'm sure BB will reconsider his views, he is not permenantly in the same mindset. As for policy that is debated in a way which everyones views are taken into consideration it is not as if the party and BB say completely differant things, they are often of the same mind.

Still, making it constitutional means that if in the future you get a bad president or a PTO one, they can exploit the rule. It's probably better as an unofficial rule IMO.

harry brownn wrote:
6.) Those wishing to run as PP, will be expected to have been a party member for at least a month, been an active party member both in game in the forums, and have proven there loyalty and dedication to the party in some form or another. Failure to meet these points will be seen as bad character and joke candidacy.

Surely this disallows anyone who is a bad candidate or attempting a PTO from being taken seriously and therefore becoming PP

Still, on the internet, there are a lot of devious trolls who would happily remain within those boundaries and then go power mad and say many foolish and suicidal things, and destroy with ease your policies. Like I say, I'm only offering advice here, but that point seems overly dangerous given how cunning trolls can be. Still, this is your constitution, not mine. I would urge you to take my advice and simply make this an informal rule, though.

true. however, rule number 13 justifies rule number 3 abit

Perhaps we shoud have a way of introducing a vote of no confidence, making the PP's views irrelevent if more than two thirds of the party and the two other inner party members all vote against him?

possibly. but if there is a stubborn party president (hopefully never) that is not wanted (best example was Winston L.S. Churchill in the UKRP) we have no way of getting him/her to leave, we can just make decisions without him/her

coram_boy wrote:Still, on the internet, there are a lot of devious trolls who would happily remain within those boundaries and then go power mad and say many foolish and suicidal things, and destroy with ease your policies. Like I say, I'm only offering advice here, but that point seems overly dangerous given how cunning trolls can be. Still, this is your constitution, not mine. I would urge you to take my advice and simply make this an informal rule, though.

*cough*Winston*cough*

Who's Winston?

Look! no mention of him in my article on the UKRP at that time.

coram_boy wrote:I'm a bit worried about point 3 (the big brother's word is final one, anyway).