Given the behavior of an elected official over the past 24 hours, I think it would be a good time to discuss this

Nay

Same with what IG said

Imgflip’s block button is a decent tool for casual ImgFlippers who are getting annoyed or feel they’re being harassed, and don’t want to wait on a ruling by a mod.

It’s not a great tool for stream mods, however, who need to be able to see what is going on in order to mod their streams.

That goes double if you’re an elected official on a stream that is trying to be a democracy. If you’re blocking critics of your government, then you’re not really governing.

We don’t have a real way of knowing who in the government is blocking whom unless they post about it. But if they do, and it’s getting out of hand, I think it could be an impeachable offense.

lol you really are desperate to get rid of me already aren't you 😂

This is a weakness in the current Constitution. There should be some Judicial branch that oversees and rules on disputes and has the power to ban.

You mean like the one that's in there? And no, it's not just me, there are juries. Maybe try reading the thing you're criticizing.

I did read it, and am still studying it. It's lengthy. You are the only judge, if I am correct. A single judge is not a judiciary. Section 2 allows for a new owner, but whoever the owner of the stream is wields a lot of power. When is the last time the stream owner changed? Correct me if I'm wrong,

Yup, who do you want the owner/judge to be?
Uhh, a few months ago actually, and then again a few months before that

I have no suggestions at this point. I'm still studying the Constitution that as a Member of Congress I'm being asked to uphold. So you like the current Constitution the way it's written? What do you like most about it and what do you think could have been done better?

I like how congress is chosen, very cool. I dislike the DMV because I think it'd be easier for me to just check their images and see if they pass the requirements (which will be elaborated upon)

It seems sort of modeled on the US Constitution, but it doesn't have the Checks and Balances element as much. There's no real judiciary which can override actions taken by Congress. Even the sole Judge (Owner) does not have that power. Nothing much can be done with only a two month term, but then again, this Constitution was passed in that time so maybe I'm wrong about that.

I think proportional representation in congress is a good check in itself. And if anything were to get far out of hand, I've stepped in a couple times.

I do like that other parties have seats in proportion to the percentage of votes they received. What I'm seeing is the Owner has the ultimate power, as you just mentioned. The stability of the Constitution is questionable if a power outside the elected government needs to step in to restore order. That should be in the hands of the President as the chief law enforcer.

I sort of think the Founding Fathers would be horrified that it's lasted this long (Jefferson in particular). Ya know, watering the tree of liberty and all.
The constitution was made for a "moral and religious people", that's why we're struggling so much these days.

Yeah, it's a lot better than it was a year ago. I'm pretty happy with where we're at.

I think the Founders would be disappointed, but not surprised. They might be gratified to have created a document that lasted this long and through wars and even a civil war. I wasn't here a year ago, but I'm going to stick around. It looks the way the current Constitution was written is the way it's going to have to be given Article 16, Section 4 which is pretty tight.

Alright, let me ask you a question. Is a constitution able to ensure stability and enforce itself? How's that going with the US right now for instance? There are plenty of constitutional violations (gun control, lockdowns, voter fraud, the list goes on and on), but nothing is done about it, because the people who actually have the power WANT to take advantage of the citizens, and they don't care about the constitution. I'm just trying to stop users from being able to tyrannize others with their power.

Well the US has it's problems, but in my view that is as much a global problem as it is a local one. But with a Constitution that has lasted over 240 years, I'd say it's pretty good at keeping stability. But it's not perfect and I don't think there is a perfect when it comes to governing. If people refuse to be governed, there is little any republican form of government can do to make them.

These are just things I'm noticing as I'm digesting this document. I recognize that I'm new to this stream. I spend most of my time on the politics stream arguing with Lefties. But this stream is intriguing. Seeing people get together to form a mock government is an interesting experiment. I'm just learning what the strengths and weaknesses are.

But the President should not hold two offices.

There is a judicial system, that would be the stream owner, Captain_Scar.

That's not really a system, that's a monarch. We should have a panel, say of three members, that can review evidence and render a judgement. This is one of the weaknesses in the current Constitution. If the judiciary is entrusted to a single person, and that person's decisions cannot be appealed, then we have a shadow monarchy. I get it. The stream has an owner and he has the final say.

I've been blocked by people, before. And I'm still alive.
Should elected officials be blocking people? Probably not. It allows them to falsely claim plausible deniability about stream goings on. We already have certain bad actors on the stream claiming total memory loss when it comes to votes and laws. Allowing them to block everyone simply gives them another excuse when they conveniently forget who voted for what and who said what.
That being said, I'm unlikely to vote for a ban on blocking people, due to the amount of blocking that, necessarily, took place in [a previous war.]

I agree with sloth on this one. While personally idc if IG has me blocked on both of his accounts, it could hinder a president’s ability to hear both sides of the argument and thus be very one sided. Which is ironic when IG is the one preaching about a constitution written by everyone, while blocking anyone he doesn’t like so he can’t see their constitution lol.

With due cause and good reason,

This makes no sense…We’ll have no way to enforce it…it’s like saying all citizens should upvote all posts…You can’t enforce it

Enforce it the same way we’d enforce anything: through impeachment, if it gets out of hand.

Ah, so we control who blocks who? I get it now

How by taking people's word for it?
There's no good way to tell and on imgflip it should be a basic right

Example: Knight Institute v. Trump
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight_First_Amendment_Institute_v._Trump

This is the court case that stated that President Trump was not allowed to block people on Twitter as Twitter is viewed as a public forum and Trump was an elected official. As a democracy requires that citizens be able to communicate with their elected officials, the reasoning stands that blocking people is denying their voices a chance to be heard in how their country is run.

This is why I've always said you're not a conservative or a libertarian.

Coming from the person who will most likely unconstitutionally delete this comment, that really doesn’t mean much.

Aye you can block whoever you want
Is it a poor move yes but let's not impair anyone's Rights

Isn’t blocking people a right? Nay

Plus how the heck would you find someone guilty of blocking another user?

Even if this is voted on and gets passed, I'm pretty sure you can't enforce this.