|
Post by Nathan on Sept 28, 2005 16:05:57 GMT -6
so you know how the Holy Roman Emperor was elected by those 7 special Electors? what if members of the Black Hole were to elect the Monarch from their own ranks and the Monarch would serve, say.... a month or 2 at most. and then we'd elect a new one. ive always liked how Shireroth's system of rotating kaisers and Antica's election of chancellor kept the government "moving." now... for this to be worth our while... someone else has to be willing to be Monarch other than me
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Sept 28, 2005 20:45:23 GMT -6
hahaha, well, that would be a problem, wouldn't it? If someone else was monarch, Natopia would be plunged into inactivity
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Sept 29, 2005 14:10:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Sept 29, 2005 14:52:33 GMT -6
Sorry. I'm starting to hate history class for obvious reasons
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Sept 29, 2005 14:57:13 GMT -6
i like history but you wouldnt even be willing to be Queen for a month or two? i mean... u ARE the Heir to the Throne
|
|
|
Post by Z on Sept 30, 2005 13:11:57 GMT -6
Sounds cool but do you want some one else to be king?
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Sept 30, 2005 13:31:58 GMT -6
i honestly wouldnt mind... but id have to amend the constitution a bit... take some of the REALLY big powers away from the King... such as remove the power of amending the constitution on my whim... i think that would be the only change though, for no other reason than to ensure the actual government doesnt change with each king.
i think it would allow people to take a greater interest in Natopia, once they experience the thrill of being king.
Also taking a page from Shireroth again, and to avoid the... unpleasentness of the "Natopian domination" of Lavalon, I might even include a rule that the King cannot be a citizen of another country while on the Throne.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Sept 30, 2005 15:22:43 GMT -6
*shrugs* I'm happy as heir. If that ever changes, I'll deal with that when the time comes.
But, if someone else decides to do the whole king thing, I'll take a turn at it.
|
|
|
Post by Z on Oct 13, 2005 10:49:25 GMT -6
I dont thin we should do this
Nate you should remain as king Nate NAte NATE!
just my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Oct 13, 2005 13:56:04 GMT -6
yeah... i just thought it would be cool... but then if we set ourselves up like the Holy Roman Empire, all the demesnes would have to be granted some more sovereignty....
it would almost be like if, under the Old Republic, that the Regional Chancellors elected a Grand Chancellor... (now that woulda been a neat idea for our republican time... o well too late now)
|
|
|
Post by XonGuest on Oct 13, 2005 19:50:53 GMT -6
Yes, history is very interesting. If I may be permitted to digress for a moment: don't make the mistake I made and choose Computer Science as your college major! If you dislike math, but are generally smart, then by all means avoid math-related majors. I will actually be talking with an advisor tomorrow about switching to a History major.
To whom to I give the credit to my error in the judgement of my abilities? The rule that says that coaches have to also teach a "class." There were the occasional exceptionally good teachers, but extinuating circumstances like their death or spouse's death always seemed to plop unfortunate subs behind their podiums. More stories of school...
And, yes, I suggest that Z be your monarch, if not Tasneem. He's actually a consistent micronationalist.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Oct 14, 2005 18:17:05 GMT -6
Ah, I had a thought to be a computer science major for all of three seconds. I'm good at math, but I just don't like the subject.
My history teacher said that majoring in history is bad cause you are either a political analysis person or a teacher. But he did say the teacher part was fun...
|
|
|
Post by XonGuest on Oct 16, 2005 21:55:39 GMT -6
I talked with my aunt this weekend, who's a professor at OSU, and she said that salaries for professors really depend on what the professor is teaching. For example, business and law professors generally have higher salaries than professors in other fields. Also, I learned that professors, especially those in business and communication, can draw a hefty sum from consulting work. I feel more confident that I will be choosing a major from Liberal Arts, but I'm not so sure now that I want it to be history
There's a stereotype out there, one that I wonder if you guys have seen, that Liberal Arts majors are unintelligent, relatively speaking of course, compared to science and engineering majors. My personal feeling is that yes, there are probably more Liberal Arts students who just aren't as smart as those in science and engineering, but that that does not mean Liberal Arts is devoid of bright, intelligent individuals. In other words, I think it gets a bad rap, but I know why it gets a bad rap. If I go into Liberal Arts I know, since I've got the ACT score to prove it, that I'll be able to "take it to the next level", although I know that not everyone else will be able to. By "taking it to the next level", I mean going on to a graduate program such as in law or for a doctorate so that I can teach.
I'm actually taking a second look at an English major. My aunt is also an ex-lawyer (she lives in OK now so keeping her bar license up-to-date for AL doesn't make any sense), and she told me that English majors were the most "well-prepared" students in graduate school for law. Another bonus to my choosing an English major would be the possibility of a writing job at a newspaper or helping out at some place that uses text that needs to be proofread (a radio station, for example). I'll be a moth circling the limelight, if anything.
My Pre-Cal Trig teacher did tell me that a computer scientist works in a cubicle all day long, but my dad still wants me to consult with some actual computer scientists before I make my decision.
|
|
|
Post by Tasneem on Oct 17, 2005 16:00:26 GMT -6
You know... I was seeing your point until you got to the "ACT score to prove it" part.
So, I'm definitely sure that those tests suck now since I took the SAT II in chemistry and it pretty much had to do with obscure chemistry, not any of the ton of important chemistry stuff that I know. So, if I get a bad score in that, does that mean I don't know chemistry? Hmm... lame, don't you think?
My uncle's a computer scientist dude, and if you don't go through with the whole deal, I heard it's hard to get high paying jobs, since that's a really popular field.
|
|
|
Post by XonGuest on Oct 17, 2005 17:11:50 GMT -6
the ACT's just one factor, i guess. you know my opinion on standardized testing. i think that it is important and, to a certain extent, reliable. but yes of course there are other things involved in whether or not someone can "take it to the next level" besides the ACT, like studying and motivation and doing homework.
That is the kind of very helpful info I need to hear. But what did your uncle mean by the "whole deal". the 4 years of college? the 8 years to get a doctorate? if i don't get an actual degree in comp sci i can't imagine getting a job in computers.
|
|