Constitution of ________

We, the people of _________, in order to create an atmosphere of
Friendship, Cooperation, Pride and Fun establish these Articles of Constitution. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an equal voice in the government and ruling of the nation, that government itself is a construct of and servant of the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to Facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.

Article I. Citizens of _________
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registries are considered citizens of ______. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech and the right to a fair trial.

Article II. Laws of our nation
Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No lower law shall be valid that contradicts these Articles. No article of this Constitution or lower Law shall be valid that contradicts the Civfanatic forum rules.

Article III. Government of _______
The government of ________ will consist of the Central Government consisting of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch. And the Local Government made up of City Mayors. The overall control of the Nation shall rest in the hands of the _______ people. Therefore all elected officials must follow the will of the people.

Article IV. Executive Branch

a) The Head of State for _____ is and shall always be the Citizens of _____. The People of ______ shall elect a MAIN LEADER to act as the leader of the Executive Branch.

b) The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the People. It is headed by the MAIN LEADER who shall be the primary Designated Player.

c) The MAIN LEADER shall take direction from the other leaders of the Executive Branch, Mayors and other elected and appointed officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The MAIN LEADER shall be tasked with control of worker actions. The MAIN LEADER shall organism the executive branch and interdepartmental cooperation.

d) The DOMESTIC LEADER shall be responsible for wonder building, including Prebuilds and Governing cities that do not have a Mayor. The DOMESTIC LEADER shall also monitor the overall happiness of _______ and Cultural Affairs.

e) The FOREIGN LEADER shall be responsible for declaring war and concluding peace, for constructing embassies in foreign lands and for signing any other non-trade agreements with other nations. The FOREIGN LEADER shall also be responsible gathering intelligence information on foreign nations and monitoring the world wide diplomatic situation. The FOREIGN LEADER is in control of all covert operations this includes planting of spies, stealing plans, sabotaging production, stealing technology and counter Espionage operations.

f) The MILITARY LEADER shall be responsible for all military strategy and troop activities. The MILITARY LEADER shall use the military forces of _______ to defend the nation and carry out the policies set out by the FOREIGN LEADER.

g) The ECONOMIC LEADER shall be responsible for all trade both foreign and domestic. They are responsible for the gathering and trading luxury and strategic resources. They are responsible for tech trades. The ECONOMIC LEADER is also responsible for the National Budget and all tasks included within. The ECONOMIC LEADER shall be responsible for all research and setting technology queues. The ECONOMIC LEADER is in charge of adjusting the slider settings.


Article V. Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch will be the Citizens Assembly. The Citizens Assembly will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and Amendments to the Constitution. The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.

Article VI. The Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an Accused individual and shall be responsible for upholding the rights of the citizens. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution and is responsible for upholding the rules and laws of ______.

Article VII: Local Government
Each Mayor shall determine any policies and procedures needed to carry out their duties. Mayors are responsible for the care, management, use of the cities, and the settling of build queues, allocation of labourers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers. Also mayors are responsible for the individual happiness of there cities and to ensure that all of the citizens of their cities have food and water.
Mayors may organize Civic Government for their individual cities to achieve the above goals. The Mayor remains legally responsible for carrying out of his duties regardless of the Civic Government.

ARTICLE VIII: Freedom of Information
All elected officials are charged with the duty to post enough information for the citizens to make a informed decision. This includes information from the save, discussions, and past polls. Any citizen of the demogame may demand a minister to supply more information. An elected official may appoint a citizen to do this task for them.



Article IX: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules. Each city created by a ______ settler shall have one elected mayor. Any cities obtained through other means shall are governed by an appropriate minister.

Article X: Appointment of Leaders
a) No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (Executive, Judiciary, Mayor or Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the commencement of the general election.

b) All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month. Each position will be granted to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

c) All executive and Mayor Positions shall have deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned Absence of the elected official. The Deputy shall is considered an agent of the Minister/Mayor if no instructions have been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming Game Session, the deputy for that office may post the official instructions for the office.

d) The Judiciary does not use deputies. In the event of an Absence, a pro-tem justice(s) may be appointed by the Chief Justice (or Judge Advocate if the Chief Justice If absent) and confirmed by the MAIN LEADER and the remaining justice if not also absent. If both the Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate are absent, the Public Defender may appoint pro-tems to the other seats, with MAIN LEADERers approval.

e) The MAIN LEADER will appoint a citizen to any vacant office. If a deputy exists for that office, the MAIN LEADER must appoint that citizen. This appointment may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment. If in the event that the MAIN LEADERers office is vacant, the chief justice shall nominate a citizen for MAIN LEADER. The candidate that the chief justice nominates shall be approved by both the public defender and the judge advocate. All of the above appoints may be challenged by an appointment poll.

Article XI: Game Play
all irreversible game actions must progress during a scheduled game session while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline before the scheduled game session.
a) An instruction thread must be created at least 2 days before the scheduled turnchat. All official instructions must be posted in the current instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the game session. Officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the game session, so long as those changes are clearly noted.

b) The Designated Player shall be charged with the creation of a date and time for all game play sessions. The DP must specify when scheduling the game play session (or when posting the TCIT) whether it will be an online or offline game play session. Any citizen may create a confirmation poll if they disagree with any particulars for a scheduled game session. Any such poll must run for at least 24 hours and be considered final at the start of the scheduled game session.

c) Commission of any game action by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out their duties that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save is strictly forbidden. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.


Article XII: Amendments
As this is intended to be a living document, and can change, this Constitution may be amended as outlined below.
a) A Proposed Poll post must be posted in the discussion thread for the amendment for 24 hours before submission to the Judiciary for review.
b) This post must include the current text and the proposed text.
c) Judicial approval of the Amendment A poll which is open for at least 96 hours, which states the text of the proposed section(s), the text of the section(s) being replaced and the posing the question in the form of Yes/No/Abstain.
d) To pass, the proposal must meet one of the following criteria: a. A 2/3 majority of all votes cast. b. A simple majority of all votes cast and the total number of votes exceeds 60% of the Census.
e) The Census is defined as the average number of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the contested elections in the most recent general elections. Should more than 3 citizens request it within a 48 hour period in the Judiciary thread; the Chief Justice will create a poll to determine a true Census. The results of this poll will override any previous Census.
f)From Time to time the constitution may be edited to remove spelling, or gramaical errors ect. These are not ammendments, but must be noted in the judical thread and the public defender must be informed


Article XIII: National Budget
The National Budgets consists of our national treasury (lump sum of gold), but does not include our additional gold per turn. It should be compiled and posted by the exchequer each turnchat. It will include a list of the funds required for rushes, upgrades, trades, and espionage. Any instruction that is not listed inside of the national budget is to be considered void. If the ECONOMIC LEADER decides to give certain elected officials a base sum of gold to use, then this must also be included within the national budget, with the maximum amount that can be used by that leader.

What do you think? it needs to have the preamble changed because this needs to be potry like. i just changed the old one. And it fits for a 5cc as well. The reason i left most of the offices is because with only 5 citys (plus conquered) we will need something fun for people to do. I expaned the Presidents office so its more fun. comment on stuff thats wrong or missing. and also i left allot of stuff out that i think should immeidate made into law like polling standards, naming conventions and judical procedure.

i really like it. it's really nice and doesn't seem to overcomplicate things. my only suggestion is to get rid of the Minister of Technology and give their powers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Leaving the tech minister will have too many positions, IMO.

I only have a few quarms about this consitution, of of wich is calling the Prime Minister. Personaly, I feel its more confortable and traditional to call our DP and head of government the President. Also, the time of the polls should be at least 3 days.

the times and polls, i just copyed stright from the current one. the titles i changed because people seemed interested in this before. and as i stated the citizens as a whole are consided the head of state

Edit: Removed by request and replaced with a newer post below.

these titles are easylly changable.

we should name the titles based on what civ we play. for example if we do Greece next game, we should stick with the Consuls and such.

these ones would of been good for this demogame

It's easy on the eyes, but I need to return home and feed the family (RL) before commenting on the substance will be possible.

CG, I might be mistaken on this as far as relative numbers go, but I'm pretty sure there are as many if not more countries with a nominal parliment system as there are with a nominal president system. (nominal used in the sense that it's called PM / President, though the details may differ radically from UK / US). Some of the RL countries with a president are not good representatives of democracy anyway -- take Iraq of 3+ years ago as an example.

The names matter less than the substance -- take a look at the duties of the various people without regard to names, and see if you like the division of work. ;)

Some of the RL countries with a president are not good representatives of democracy anyway -- take Iraq of 3+ years ago as an example.

What about Cuba? Everyone seems to forget about Cuba after the fall of the USSR :p.

Perhaps its a good evidence to help me support the title change to Prime Minister since I dont want to see a title that symbolized Democracy that has been tarnished by Saddam and Fidel Castro.

If this gets support or if it gets changed but is popular, then i should post it for people to vote on. what steps do i take to turn this into law

Here are my comments so far.


Many places say "shale", I suspect they should be "shall".
Article IV references Governors but Article III refers to Mayors.
Minister of Exterior should be in charge of covert operations. Having "in coordination with" is an opening for excessive JRs.
Culture is missing -- the duties need to be absorbed by someone.
Articles cannot be proposed to the Judiciary because it hasn't been formed yet. Just stick with Amendments and Laws.
I would like to see the 3 day rule for TCIT reduced to 2 days so we can play chats more often with fewer turns per chat.
The census is used but not defined.
In general the grammer, spelling, and punctuation could be cleaned up.
There are some things which are not included. I'm not sure if this is intentional, or an oversight. I'd recommend going through the DG5 and DG6 Judicial Reviews and noting things which were unclear, and making sure all of those issues are covered.
Naming should be via discussion and voting, since there will not be anywhere enough cities for everyone to have a city named. This needs to be spelled out because many will try to use the old method of either using the CoC, or the mayors just get to pick a name.

ok i will look at these things. (i new shale looked wrong :( )

Many places say "shale", I suspect they should be "shall".
done
Article IV references Governors but Article III refers to Mayors.
done
Minister of Exterior should be in charge of covert operations. Having "in coordination with" is an opening for excessive JRs.
delt to
Articles cannot be proposed to the Judiciary because it hasn't been formed yet. Just stick with Amendments and Laws.
what do you mean, this is meant to be the entire constution
Culture is missing -- the duties need to be absorbed by someone.
Done
I would like to see the 3 day rule for TCIT reduced to 2 days so we can play chats more often with fewer turns per chat.
Done
The census is used but not defined.
Done
In general the grammer, spelling, and punctuation could be cleaned up.
I suck at this, spell check is happy with it, and i took out alot of errors. if someone went over it for me i would be happy
There are some things which are not included. I'm not sure if this is intentional, or an oversight. I'd recommend going through the DG5 and DG6 Judicial Reviews and noting things which were unclear, and making sure all of those issues are covered. I will look at the JR soon, alot of stuff like Naming rights, polling stanards, Judical procedure, should be made into addtion laws. these cant be made until a constitution is.
Naming should be via discussion and voting, since there will not be anywhere enough cities for everyone to have a city named. This needs to be spelled out because many will try to use the old method of either using the CoC, or the mayors just get to pick a name.
what ever i have no idea about this. i re done the titals to very plain, so that when we pick the name of the civ we can also pick the titals.

I would like to see the 3 day rule for TCIT reduced to 2 days so we can play chats more often with fewer turns per chat.


no no no. do not do this. i hated it this game, that i only had 3 days to do TCIT and such. i could barely get polls to have a reasonable amount of people voting with 3 days. you want to make it 2 days now. don't do this. IMO, you should make it 1 TC every 4 days, but play more turns per TC. if we have to leave it at 3 so be it, but no way i'm going to do a TCIT every 2 days.

no no no. do not do this. i hated it this game, that i only had 3 days to do TCIT and such. i could barely get polls to have a reasonable amount of people voting with 3 days. you want to make it 2 days now. don't do this. IMO, you should make it 1 TC every 4 days, but play more turns per TC. if we have to leave it at 3 so be it, but no way i'm going to do a TCIT every 2 days.

OK, I can see it from that point of view too. My objection is to long play sessions, which lock me out of a potential 4th (or is it 5th?) run for the top slot. I was thinking to offset playing fewer turns (a necessity if it's me playing them) by doing it more often (too much of a burden on others).

However... what if there is nothing to discuss? We finish 10 turns and the exact same instructions are still good for the next 10. Then the law requires us to wait 3 days where fewer would be ok. Taking this limit out of the constitution and electing people who will play at the pace you want is more flexible. :D

For the length of turns, we're playing with significantly fewer cities than in the past.

Let's explicitly state that game sessions can last for up to 20 turn, and can be ended by a direct instruction to do so at a certain point by a leader.

-- Ravensfire

what about who controls the slider, who should do that?

Science and Economic both end up responsible for acquiring tech as it's currently written. This is why I pushed for Trade & Tech to be combined in the last game, so that the same leader is responsible for research and tech trading.

Slider settings balance 4 things: tech rate, happieness, treasury, and available GPT for purchases. Resource trades affect luxury slider, tech trades affect science slider, both affect treasury and GPT available for other trades.

Every game we want these areas spread out because they feel like too much for one department, and each time we have trouble determining how to do the split. Maybe we should just accept that they are all interrelated and put everything related to GPT, resources, and tech in the same office?

For the length of turns, we're playing with significantly fewer cities than in the past.

Let's explicitly state that game sessions can last for up to 20 turn, and can be ended by a direct instruction to do so at a certain point by a leader.

-- Ravensfire

Yes, that's a factor which might shorten game play sessions. I'm just against putting any of these limits in the constitution, where if we run into exceptions it becomes too hard to adjust. (That's funny, are our positions reversed on this one? :crazyeye: )

If we do keep the 3 day TCIT rule then have an exception for short sessions for a well-defined purpose. I conducted several 0-turn chats in term 1 last game which were declared illegal after the fact by JRs which said the TCIT would have needed to be open 3 days. We need to be able to end a session, discuss for a day, see an obvious trade, do the trade, and then discuss some more before the next real game session.

It seems like setting the TCIT times as a hard rule will almost inevitably cause some sort of trouble, because the thread will be posted several seconds too late, because someone forgot to clearly define the circumstances of a 0-turn chat, etc.

I'm with DS on this one - let's leave that requirement at something like 'a reasonable amount of time prior to the turnchat' at the MAIN LEADER's (I couldn't help calling it that :D) discresion. Then again, maybe I just put too much faith in humanity's common sense...

And, on the local government section, nobody, I'd like to make a suggestion.

Since we'll be working with a smaller number of cities, I'm thinking that we could possibly get more people involved on the local level. I'd simply add a sentence, that 'Mayors may organize civic government for their individual cities as they see fit.' I think we could open some roleplay avenues if mayors had a free hand in their internal organization - one could declare himself a king and appoint royal advisors, another mayor could organize a republic and elections for a Senate or something.

It may be interesting, or it may fail spectacularly. But, it definetly won't harm anyone if such systems don't work out.

Local governments make a huge amount of sense in this environment, especially if we play Greece like many people seem to want. After all, Greece was a loose confederation of city-states, wasn't it? :cool:

Another twist on local government:
Perhaps give local government (partial?) control of workers on its tiles? Of ccourse there would need to be some centralization for roading the cities and such, but it could create more things for a government of one city to do.

Starting a countdown:

Nominations are on the 23rd. Subtract 4 days for ratification means the poll needs to go up by the 19th, make it the 18th to handle any SNAFU which might come up. That means if anyone has significant comments they'd better be made soon. :hammer:

@Nobody: please combine Science and Economic leader. i think we could benefit from less positions and tech would have basically no job, accept saying what tech to research. IMO combining the 2 will give the ECO/SCI power over enough to make a difference.

ok i will put the eco and sci together, i just thought tha it might be to much for one person. i will put these changes in soon, for people to comment on. also everyone please note that laws about polls and stuff need to happen fast after a constitution is made.

SO: combine sci and eco, make local goverment better, and say who gets sliders, i will do this in a mo, but i got to read harry potter as well

i updated it to add things you people requested. I didnt change the turn chat time, as i didnt know what was a popular change. anything else please tell me so i can modify it. I will post it tomorrow morning my time when i get up. I intend to make it a private poll lasting 3 days with the question "do you ratify this constutituon into law, yes no abstain" i am telling you this so you can yell and tell me how to do it better before i do it .

i updated it to add things you people requested. I didnt change the turn chat time, as i didnt know what was a popular change. anything else please tell me so i can modify it. I will post it tomorrow morning my time when i get up. I intend to make it a private poll lasting 3 days with the question "do you ratify this constutituon into law, yes no abstain" i am telling you this so you can yell and tell me how to do it better before i do it .

It needs to be public and lasting 4 days. Please state that a simple majority is sufficient to ratify.

Anybody up for getting rid of "the will of the people" and letting the elected leaders lead?

Anybody up for getting rid of "the will of the people" and letting the elected leaders lead?

im not, it is important that the citizens control the game, you will see this theme through out it.

I'd like to see that happen, actually. 'The Will of the People' is such an enigmatic thing that can constantly change from one poll and discussion to the next. Long term planning by the strategic arm of government during this game, for example, may have been far more sucessful if one leader had gotten into office and stuck to his plans through thick and thin. Maybe it's also too much to hope for, but without that WotP requirement, elections might actually become more than popularity contests.

If you still wanted leaders to be subject to the people, a recall mechanism might do nicely. For one, we would instantly rid ourselves of Citizen Complaints involving a certain leader's inability to follow the will of the people...

And, of course, it would mean that one of my constantly reused campaign platforms would actually be useful. :p

I'd like to see that happen, actually. 'The Will of the People' is such an enigmatic thing that can constantly change from one poll and discussion to the next. Long term planning by the strategic arm of government during this game, for example, may have been far more sucessful if one leader had gotten into office and stuck to his plans through thick and thin. Maybe it's also too much to hope for, but without that WotP requirement, elections might actually become more than popularity contests.

If you still wanted leaders to be subject to the people, a recall mechanism might do nicely. For one, we would instantly rid ourselves of Citizen Complaints involving a certain leader's inability to follow the will of the people...

And, of course, it would mean that one of my constantly reused campaign platforms would actually be useful. :p
I agree, make the WOTP shown in elections...

Anybody up for getting rid of "the will of the people" and letting the elected leaders lead?
I agree entirely, though I will be on vacation for a week but I would like to state my support for this

I'll support this. This should allow leaders to basically lay out an agenda of what they'll do in elections and then citizens will leave them alone for minor/long term decisions. However, i still think major decisions should be polled. Also, if citizens are upset about something then they could put up a poll to "veto" a decison made by a leader. Otherwise WOTP will be out the window.

ok i will remove it, then i post the poll.

okay, I will repeat my list from the poll, boldthings, must be fixed, while italicized things are in my opinion or not as important

1. I thought you removed the WOTP?
2. Numerour spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes
3. It should have been polled Article by Article IMO
4. According to this, captured cities will be governed by an "appropriate" minister, I guess this implies the Domestic Minister, but I am not sure...
5. There is nothing stopping of us from building more than 5 cities
6. City Naming isn't mentioned
7. It doesn't say how deputies are appointed, IE runner up or officials choice
8. No basic polling standards anywhere
9. IMO 2 days isn't enough between TC sessions, make TCs longer but more spaced out
10. I don't want the president to be DP
11. Confirmation polls are referenced to, but not defined
12. The DPs selection of Turn Chat time/type shouldn't be subject to confirmation poll
13. Appointment poll referenced to, but not defined
14. Any citizen can demand a leader to supply more info, hmmmm so it doesn't matter if an official has posted everything about the game, more can still be demanded... this should be more specific
15. DOMESTIC LEADER should be responsible for settling...


Lets see, # 5,6,8,11,13,14 can be easily defined in a CoL

Code of Laws
A. Citizen Rights
1. Naming Rights
a. City Names
All cities founded by Fanatannia will be named by citizens
using a rank-based system. The President will maintain
this list in a thread. Should a citizen fail to provide a
city name, they will be skipped until they provide a city
name. The Director of Expansion will include the city name
to be used in the instructions to found that city. No
citizen may name more than one city until all citizens
have named a city.
1. Ranking Order - elected officials
The rank order is based on the term and the Chain of
Command. All officials of an earlier term have priority
over officials of a later term. Within a term, the
Chain of Command will determine who has priority.
2. Ranking Order - citizens
Once all elected officials have named cities, the
Citizen Regsitry will be used to name cities, using the
order citizens were registered.
All cities founded by ________ will be named. The name of a city
shall be decided by a poll, all citizens may submit names to the
DOMESTIC LEADER, and he/she will poll the submitted names.

b. Province Names
The first Governor of a province will name the province.

c. Unit Names
The Commander of Armed Forces will utilize the unit naming
preferences within the Citizen Registry thread to rename all
military units.

c. Natural Feature Names
All natural features within a province may be named by the
Governor of the province.

2. Confirmation Polls
a. Confirmation polls are used in certain, specified
situations to challenge the decision of an elected official.
Confirmation polls may be used only when explicitly allowed
by law. Any citizen may create a confirmation poll, should
one not already exist. This poll must be created within 24
hours of the appointment or decision, and ask the question
"Do you approve of the <description of decision>?", with
Yes, No and Abstain option. If the confirmation poll
directly concerns a citizen (e.g. appointment), this poll
is to be private, as it is a form of an election. The poll
will run for 2 days. At the end of the time, if a majority
of the citizens vote "No", the decision is overturned. Any
other result approves the decision.

H. Elections, Deputies and Vacancies
1. Nominations and Debate
a. Nominations will be created by the Election Office 7 days
prior to the end of the month. Citizens may nominate
themself or another citizen in this thread. Citizens may
also post pre-nominations in the Election Office thread if
they will not be present during the nomination period.
This nomination thread should contain a description of the
office.
b. All debates will be within the nomination thread, and will
continue through the end of the election cycle. Any citizen
may post questions for the candidates to answer. Candidates
may answer or not answer as they wish.
c. A nomination is not considered Accepted until the candidate
makes an explicit post. All self-nominations are considered
Accepted unless otherwise stated.

2. Election Polls
a. Election polls will be created by the Election Office 3
days after the Nomination threads are created. These polls
will contain the names of all Accepted candidates for the
office, a description of the office, a link to the
nomination thread, be set to run for 3 days and be marked
private.
b. Should a citizen Accept multiple nominations, and does not
explicitly clarify which office they wish to run for, the
Election Office will use the first office they Accepted.
c. The citizen with the most votes at the close of the poll
is the winner of the election. Should two or more
candidates tie at the end of the election poll with the
same number of votes, a runoff election of two days
duration will be conducted with the tied candidates only.
This process shall continue until one candidate receives
the most votes.

3. General
a. The Election Cycle will run from the first nomination thread
is opened until the last runoff poll closes.
b. All threads and polls should be posted at approximately 00:00
GMT on the correct day.

4. Deputies
a. For all positions with deputies, the leader may appoint the
citizen of their choice as their deputy.

5. Vacant Offices
a. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. This period may not exceed 1
week. During this time, the deputy or pro-tem will act
with all power and duties of that office, surrendering
them to the official or Justice when they return or at
the end of the planned absence, whichever comes first.

b. Should an official fail to post in the DG forum for 3
days in a thread related to their area without prior
notice, the Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

c. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter
for three days, the remaining Justices may declare the
Justice Vacant. If all three Justices fail to post on
any active Judicial matter for 3 days, the President may
declare all Judicial offices Vacant, and immediately
appoint a new Chief Justice.

I. Polling Standards
1. Any poll posted by an official of the Democracy game is considered
official and binding, unless otherwise stated.

2. All polls must simply and clearly state the question and all
options in a neutral manner, and contain an abstain option.

3. A poll should state the objectives of the poll and the time
limit (if any) of the poll.

4. A poll must also contain all releveant information, including
links to the respective ministry thread, discussion, and other
polls.

5. All official polls will be public unless they deal with
specific citizens. Those polls must be private.

Pretty muchly the same as this time, except city naming is changed and unit naming removed

Key:
Removed
Changed
Added

I do agree with removing the unit naming and should be purely optional within the department.

We can't remove the will of the people thing. :nono: Without a requirement for discussion & polling, the rest of the people who are not elected may leave, never to return. :eek: This is the lesson of DG6 -- take away the things that people perceive to be fun, and they will just find something else which is more fun.

It's a mindset problem, not a law problem. We had citizens who would say nothing on a topic, and then complain if there wasn't a poll or the poll was not open for enough days. We had leaders who got afraid of the people, who polled everything. :rolleyes:

DG6 was supposed to be about leaders discussing and polling big issues, and then implementing them without troubling the people about the low-level details. What you need is for the people to know they are in charge, but still allow the leaders powers over the details.

Here's what we need in terms of a decision tree:

Laws enacted by the people by a majority vote
Polls which supercede laws by a vote of more than 60%
Polls for areas in which there is no in-game law, simle majority or largest vote count, as specified by person posting the poll
Results of discussiosn where there is clear support for an idea
Leader's perogative


To put a bit more detail behind this idea.

Any citizen can take the initiative to start debate on a law, send the law through judicial review, and post a poll regarding its ratification. Laws must state how long they last, in in-game terms. The maximum duration a law may stay in force without being re-ratified is {insert value here}.
A law may be repealed or amended ahead of its built-in sunset date by a 60% vote. Any citizen may start an initiative to amend or repeal a law by holding debate and sending it for Judicial Review approval.
Any citizen may request an opinion poll on a decision where it is reasonable to believe that public support for / against the decision is divided. A leader may also voluntarily poll any decision. On citizen request, the leader responsible for the decision shall post the requested poll. Concurrently, if the leader believes the poll request is frivolous, a Judicial Review may be started. If the Judiciary rules that a poll should not be needed, then the results of the poll may be ignored. The Judiciary may rule a poll is invalid because public opinion is strongly against the poll and the poll is designed to delay play unnecessarily, or if the poll would have the effect of introducing an irreconcilable difference between this decision and some other decision. OK I know this is getting a bit wordy -- the bottom line is there had better be a good reason for forcing a poll, and the court may throw it out if there is no good reason.
Any citizen may request a decision be discussed. A leader may voluntarily hold a discussion on any subject.
In the absense of citizen input on a subject, the leader has the power and responsibility to make a timely decision on that subject.


Now the question for the "get rid of the WOTP" movement -- does this fix the problem you are seeing with over-polling? I'm fine with tossing out the dirty bathwater, as long as the baby isn't tossed with it. :D

As a quick note, if we do repoll the constitution, we probably should go ahead and stick in that CoL...

And, to respond to Dave, that process you've just outlined strikes me as a litigious way of doing things. Rather than allowing leaders to strike out and attempt to find that balance of their own initiative and citizen input that system would enforce a certain conformity on the entire decision-making process, which I'm almost certain could be coordinated by a single person rather than five of them, as I think it's safe to assume the people have one will, rather than a will that is dependant on who decides to show up to the discussion table.

The will of the people would still be involved, to the extent the leader wanted their opinions. Of course, if the leader screws up, he has pay at the ballot box - as it is, it probably is illegal to state a personal agenda during an election. We could introduce new mechanisms, of course, to check leaders if we removed that all-powerful Will - a recall mechanism to allow removal of officials without a CC for the simple reason that they don't like him (see Gray Davis), and another that allows regular citizens to create binding polls (given a certain (super)majority and quorum), so if a citizen really felt like some decision should be made, he'd have an oppertunity to do it without having to deal with the court, a body which can be daunting.

Granted, I don't mind a little order to some things, but it can go too far. A leader can be stifiled and exhausted by double and triple checking before excercising any initiative, and this simply isn't healthy. Let's go ahead and remove those barrriers, add a few checks and balances to replace them, and allow our leaders to actually lead.

A recall procedure might be sufficient check on a leader's hypothetical ability to run rampant over public opinion. I'm no fan of extraneous judicial action, it's just the only thing we've had support for in the past. The recall idea keeps getting shot down because certain insecure people are worried that they would win an election only to be subjected to constant recall attempts.

What I'm really worried about is Joe Citizen feeling detached from the game if we allow leaders to just go silent on issues of the day, and post instructions without doing anything else. Sure, such a leader is not going to win the next election and may even get recalled. Unfortunately it looks like once someone gets ignored too much around here, they're history.

The code of laws black_hole posted was great. We should use that. now about WOTP. i agree with you DS. leaders poll and discuss big decisions, while leave people alone for little details. I don't want to eliminate WOTP, i just want it to be less prominent.

i like the code of laws that black hole just posted

That's the problem, isn't it - we either lose citizen interest by letting have leaders have free reign, or lose the ability to find people to fill those leadership positions because they become too tedious.

Unless I'm missing some sort of way to balance this out, I think that removing the absolute supremacy of the will of the people is well-balanced by the recall mechanism. For example, in all my time at the Apolyton C3CISDG, despite the presence of a mechanism the recall a leader, it has never been used (especally against myself :p). And, if we're concerned about abuse, we could easily require that x number of citizens all demand a recall vote before one takes place, to prevent them for recurring 'constantly.'

Basically, I'm betting that making these changes will lead to a more dynamic leadership, which consequently leads to a citizenry more involved in the operations of the game.

An alternative (CoL strongly needed with this, but posting just the Con for now. Details for several sections here are intended to be in the CoL).

We, the people of CIV_NAME, in order to create an atmosphere of friendship, cooperation, and pride, establish this Constitution of our beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.

Article A. Citizenship
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to seek to redress grievances and the right to vote.

Article B. Laws of the CIV_NAME
Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles.

Further, these rules may not contradict the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities that were built by CIV_NAME may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be captured. All other cities must be razed immediately.

Article D. Government Structure
The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Article E. The Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the People. It is headed by the President. The President is responsible for all National efforts, including control of the slider and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over workers or use of gold.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for all matters involving treaties with foreign nations and all espionage activities. This includes Trade Embargoes, Military Alliances and the use of Spies to acquire technologies.

The Minister of Defense is responsible for the actions of all Military units.

The Minister of Trade and Technology is responsible for all trade initiatives and research goals.

Article F. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch is formed of the House of the People and a Senate of Governors.

The House is made up of all citizens, and is responsible for the creation of new laws and Amendments. The House will present all such proposal to the Judiciary for review.

The Senate is made up of the 6 Governors, and is responsible for the well-being of the cities of CIV_NAME. Each of the 5 native cities will have its own Governor, and all captured cities will be controlled by the COOL_GOVERNOR_NAME. Each Governor is responsible for the care, management, and use of cities they control.

Article G. Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner.

The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Article H Elections
The Executive Branch positions, Governorships and the Judiciary positions are all elected positions with a fixed term of one month.

Article I. Multiple Offices
No person shall hold multiple elected positions simultaneously, nor have more than one accepted nomination at the commencement of the general election.

Article J. Will of the People
Elected Officials must plan and act according to the Will of the People.

Article K. Recall of Elected Officials
Citizens may request a Recall of an elected official at any time.

Article L. Game Sessions
All irreversible game actions must progress during a game session, while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline. During each session, the designated player must provide a log of their actions in sufficient detail to replicate their actions.

A Game Session Instruction Thread must be created at least 3 days before the chat by the Designated Player for that session. A special session to accomplish a specific, short goal may by held by the President if there is significant public support. These special sessions

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. However, officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are clearly noted.

Article M. Playing the Save
Commission of any game action, by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out their duties, that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save is strictly forbidden.

Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.

Article N. Census, and Amending the Constitution
The Census is defined as the average number of votes cast, dropped fractions, in each of the contested elections in the most recent general election

Amendments to the Constitution must pass Judicial Review. If accepted, the Judiciary will post the poll. This poll will be open for 4 days, state the new text and the current text. To pass, an amendment must have a 67% majority of positive votes, ignoring Abstain, and have a total number of votes greater than 2/3 of the census, dropping fractions.

Amendments must be posted as a Proposed Poll in the discussion thread for at least 24 hours prior to submission to the Judiciary.

-- Ravensfire

Thanks, we need input, badly! :clap:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities that were built by CIV_NAME may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be captured. All other cities must be razed immediately.


I agree that this is what we're agreeing to, but don't think it should be in the Constitution. CoL maybe...


Article E. The Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the People. It is headed by the President. The President is responsible for all National efforts, including control of the slider and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over workers or use of gold.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for all matters involving treaties with foreign nations and all espionage activities. This includes Trade Embargoes, Military Alliances and the use of Spies to acquire technologies.

The Minister of Defense is responsible for the actions of all Military units.

The Minister of Trade and Technology is responsible for all trade initiatives and research goals.


Where are culture and domestic, in particular where do we settle the 5 cities? Also where are government switches, wonders, and mobilization?


Article F. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch is formed of the House of the People and a Senate of Governors.

The House is made up of all citizens, and is responsible for the creation of new laws and Amendments. The House will present all such proposal to the Judiciary for review.

The Senate is made up of the 6 Governors, and is responsible for the well-being of the cities of CIV_NAME. Each of the 5 native cities will have its own Governor, and all captured cities will be controlled by the COOL_GOVERNOR_NAME. Each Governor is responsible for the care, management, and use of cities they control.


Does the Senate have any responsibilites as a group? It seems not, in which case why not just say there are 6 Governors?


Article K. Recall of Elected Officials
Citizens may request a Recall of an elected official at any time.


Good, someone is finally going to try to get this included. :)


Article L. Game Sessions
All irreversible game actions must progress during a game session, while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline. During each session, the designated player must provide a log of their actions in sufficient detail to replicate their actions.

A Game Session Instruction Thread must be created at least 3 days before the chat by the Designated Player for that session. A special session to accomplish a specific, short goal may by held by the President if there is significant public support. These special sessions


Text missing here?

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. However, officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are clearly noted.


This level of detail is not in accordance with the rest of the proposal. On reading the first few articles I thought details would be in the CoL, which sounds like a better idea to me. Let's move these specifics to the CoL, please.


Article N. Census, and Amending the Constitution
The Census is defined as the average number of votes cast, dropped fractions, in each of the contested elections in the most recent general election

Amendments to the Constitution must pass Judicial Review. If accepted, the Judiciary will post the poll. This poll will be open for 4 days, state the new text and the current text. To pass, an amendment must have a 67% majority of positive votes, ignoring Abstain, and have a total number of votes greater than 2/3 of the census, dropping fractions.


No, this makes amendments far too hard. The system we had in DG6 was perfect -- 66% approval, OR simple majority with 60% of the census voting. This article is a deal breaker for me. :thumbdown:

I agree that this is what we're agreeing to, but don't think it should be in the Constitution. CoL maybe...
Nope - gotta be in here. The Constitution is the basic structure - where the core ideas and concepts should be. Things are not supposed to be easy to change! The 5BC is a core part of this DG - it absolutely belongs here.

Where are culture and domestic, in particular where do we settle the 5 cities? Also where are government switches, wonders, and mobilization?Part of that is in the CoL - Governors lead discussions on where their city gets founded. The first 2 -3 cycles we'll have numbers next to the unsettled governors to detail priority.

Gov. Switches, wonders and mobilization are national efforts, and are covered by the President. Also, note the "catch-all" phrase there - in this ruleset, if something gets missed, we don't HAVE to figure out who gets it - it goes to the President. They can then delegate if they want.

Does the Senate have any responsibilites as a group? It seems not, in which case why not just say there are 6 Governors?Just giving them a name - nothing special.
Good, someone is finally going to try to get this included. :)The details of the recall process are in the CoL. Again, the Constitution contains the basics and the most critical details.
Text missing here?Umm, yeah. Just a bit. Should be "These special sessions do not count as regular game sessions."
This level of detail is not in accordance with the rest of the proposal. On reading the first few articles I thought details would be in the CoL, which sounds like a better idea to me. Let's move these specifics to the CoL, please.The details DO belong in the CoL - that was a change from my first draft, and missed this section.
No, this makes amendments far too hard. The system we had in DG6 was perfect -- 66% approval, OR simple majority with 60% of the census voting. This article is a deal breaker for me. :thumbdown:
Very, very leery about that. The Constitution SHOULD be hard to change. The CoL is where the details are. If you are changing a core concept, a core rule, there should be very strong support for it. I can handle lowering the quorum level, but if you can't convince 2/3 of the active voters that a particular change is good, you shouldn't be making that change.

-- Ravensfire

Should we move the rule discussion and DG7 related materials to the new DG7 forum that just opened up?

That's a pretty good constitution ravensfire, but you gave the president (DP) way too much. Only 3 positions besides DP!?! Make a Domestic Minister to go with that. They will control: sliders, gov. switchs, mobilization, wonders and culture.

That's a pretty good constitution ravensfire, but you gave the president (DP) way too much. Only 3 positions besides DP!?! Make a Domestic Minister to go with that. They will control: sliders, gov. switchs, mobilization, wonders and culture.

But why? Why not have the President do that?

The focus is on the Governors (which you forgot about) - not the national leaders.

Also, there is still one part that's not in there - the DP pool. Yup - introducing it in a proposal. Basically, there is a pool of citizens, each term, to be the DP for a session. Each DP determines exactly when their session will be played, within a framework.

To get into that pool, citizens post in a thread during the nomination cycle. A poll will go up, listing all citizens that posted, multi-choice format. If they get X number of votes (X to be determined), they go in the pool. They are ordered by number of votes, with those that didn't DP last term before all that did DP last term.

The President is there to focus on the national projects and referee. Finally, citizens that don't have the time to be the DP, can serve as President. Likewise, those that want to play the save, but don't want to be President can do so.

Total number of elected positions: 13 NOT 3
-- National: 4 (Pres, Military, Trade/Tech, FA)
-- Governor: 6 (5 cities + 1 captured cities)
-- Judiciary 3

Total number Deputies: 10

-- Ravensfire

I know there would be more than 3 positons, i was commenting on the 3 nationwide positions, as governors are for cities.

I know there would be more than 3 positons, i was commenting on the 3 nationwide positions, as governors are for cities.
Please then, clarify that point when you make it. Governors ARE elected positions, after all, not just some lackey job we give to people that can't handle real tasks.

The focus on this type of a game should be on the cities, NOT on the national government. Look at the Domestic position you created. To do it, you had to move just about everything from the President over. Oh yes. And culture. That's needed exactly why? Why don't you think that the Governor's can't handle that?

-- Ravensfire

The focus on this type of a game should be on the cities, NOT on the national government. Look at the Domestic position you created. To do it, you had to move just about everything from the President over. Oh yes. And culture. That's needed exactly why? Why don't you think that the Governor's can't handle that?



That stuff should go to a Domestic Minister because the President (DP) should have their hands full playing the game. About the culture thing: they wouldn't be saying temple here, library there. They'd be examining overall culture, comparing it too other nations, and considering if building wonders are worth it.

Very, very leery about that. The Constitution SHOULD be hard to change. The CoL is where the details are. If you are changing a core concept, a core rule, there should be very strong support for it. I can handle lowering the quorum level, but if you can't convince 2/3 of the active voters that a particular change is good, you shouldn't be making that change.

What about a change which is critically necessary but doesn't have overwhelming enough support to get 2/3? Take a hypothetical situation that the game will end if the change isn't made, and we get 60% support with 100% voting. For example take the end of DG6, and the consitutional amendment is that we can't win the game by domination. What if 6 people voted in favor of the amendment to stick with culture and 4 voted no for domination. Should we end the game in domination because those 4 people are unwilling to change their minds? Under the DG6 rules, the amendment would pass, under your rules it would not.

Take the 5BC case -- what if we get a few hundred turns in, and some runaway AI has barely twice our culture with only a couple of turnchats remaining before they exceed the culture limit. We can stave off defeat by rushing settlers and then rushing culture fast enough to gain culture at a higher rate. Should we allow 4 diehards to force us to lose when there are 6 who want to win a different way? Sure, this is a very remote possibility, but it is possible, and I don't want to be in the majority and held hostage this way.

What about a change which is critically necessary but doesn't have overwhelming enough support to get 2/3? Take a hypothetical situation that the game will end if the change isn't made, and we get 60% support with 100% voting. For example take the end of DG6, and the consitutional amendment is that we can't win the game by domination. What if 6 people voted in favor of the amendment to stick with culture and 4 voted no for domination. Should we end the game in domination because those 4 people are unwilling to change their minds? Under the DG6 rules, the amendment would pass, under your rules it would not.

Take the 5BC case -- what if we get a few hundred turns in, and some runaway AI has barely twice our culture with only a couple of turnchats remaining before they exceed the culture limit. We can stave off defeat by rushing settlers and then rushing culture fast enough to gain culture at a higher rate. Should we allow 4 diehards to force us to lose when there are 6 who want to win a different way? Sure, this is a very remote possibility, but it is possible, and I don't want to be in the majority and held hostage this way.
Let's look at that hypothetical situation. Basically, the scenario is we're about to lose the game. The only way we can win the game, is to change how we're playing it. Basically, we cheat. DG6, we lost in my book.

How could we have handled it better? First, we're at the end-game. There was no reason to stay at 10 turn game sessions. We easily could have shifted to 15, 20 or more. Likewise, shifting to more frequent sessions would also have sped things up a bit. Easy, simple changes. And both of those would be in my CoL.

DS - the Constitution is there to be a strong, static framework. I've tried to keep things open and flexible where they should be. Some things aren't - those are supposed to be.

Put the the basics in the Constitution. Keep everything else out.

Alas, this entire discussion is probably moot. In less than a day, we'll have the least complete Constitution we've had to start a DG with. And that's impressive considering our history.

-- Ravensfire

My 2 pennies:

Let's look at that hypothetical situation. Basically, the scenario is we're about to lose the game. The only way we can win the game, is to change how we're playing it. Basically, we cheat. DG6, we lost in my book.

completely agree. If we want to play a variant, we stick to it. If we lose, we lose (and AI victories don't materialize out of thin air, you can see them coming from miles away). Variant rules should not be amendable at all, in my book.

I think ravensfire's constitution is pretty good. I would prefer fewer elected positions so that we get meaningful elections, but I don't really see how that could be done. Perhaps allow people to hold both a national executive and a governor position? The governor positions are not that important anyway.

Apart from that, I just have the same problems with this one as with any earlier framework. In order of appearance:

Article A: What is freedom of movement? Our last judiciary didn't seem to know...

Article E: responsibility comes with decision power. Decision power lies with the WotP, so officials cannot be responsible. They are at most responsible for initiating discussions and polls.
If you make a list, it better be complete, so to the Minister of FA section, please add "MPP's, ROP's, use of embassies and spies, declarations of war, peace negotiations". Did I miss any?

Article G: depending on how this is worked out, we will once again have justices who also serve as parties in a conflict. How can the public defender ever vote "guilty" in a CC? (I would get rid of CC's btw).

Article J: what is the Will of the People? Something like: the Will of the People is the aggregate (?) wish of the citizens of our country. It is determined by unanimity in a completed discussion, or by the majority vote in a poll. "completed discussion" and "poll" perhaps need to be qualified somewhere.

Article K: obviously needs some safeguards against abuse. Apart from that, a great way to retire inactive or runaway officials.

Article M: I don't like the exception.


Alas, this entire discussion is probably moot. In less than a day, we'll have the least complete Constitution we've had to start a DG with. And that's impressive considering our history.


Is there any constitution in play yet? EDIT: nvm, saw the poll.

I also think some supported the constitution in protest to the legal rectonomy show that takes place to every single demogame. THe laws and enforcement are generally unfair, ineffective, have double standards and steal focus, so no need to cultivate that part of the Demogame. Also, some special people got legal immunity, so no need to glorify the constitution.

Alas, this entire discussion is probably moot. In less than a day, we'll have the least complete Constitution we've had to start a DG with. And that's impressive considering our history.



what are you talking about? the poll stands right now at a 10-10 tie. last time i checked, polls have to have a majority to pass and i doubt many more people will vote.

I think if we work with your consitution, and try to get something everyone will sort of like, we can get this to workout just fine. :)

what are you talking about? the poll stands right now at a 10-10 tie. last time i checked, polls have to have a majority to pass and i doubt many more people will vote.

Vote was 10-9 when I posted. As you noted, I doubted many more would vote.

I was, for now, mistaken. I'm pleased about that.

-- Ravensfire

Article A: What is freedom of movement? Our last judiciary didn't seem to know...Nothing significant - it's to allows citizens to call themselves a resident of a particular city, and to prevent a mayor of a city from trying to restrict who could and could not reside there. Mostly RPG stuff.
Article E: responsibility comes with decision power. Decision power lies with the WotP, so officials cannot be responsible. They are at most responsible for initiating discussions and polls.
If you make a list, it better be complete, so to the Minister of FA section, please add "MPP's, ROP's, use of embassies and spies, declarations of war, peace negotiations". Did I miss any?I'm going to disagree here, because I don't want to see leaders "at most" initiate discussions and polls. Leaders should be a filter for ideas - eliminating the useless and unsupported. Leaders should guide and focus discussions on the relevant issues and scope, to get a good understanding of what people want. Not everything needs to be polled, but everything should be available for discussion.
Article G: depending on how this is worked out, we will once again have justices who also serve as parties in a conflict. How can the public defender ever vote "guilty" in a CC? (I would get rid of CC's btw).That's something that's been discussed for quite some time. Likewise, imagine a PD that refused to defend someone because they thought they were guilt! :eek:

CC's are an imperfect solution to a unpleasant situation - how do you handle situations where one person accuses another of breaking the rules? The moderators really don't want to get involved. Also, one of the core aspects of any government simulation is the evaluation of claims of wrongdoing - justice.

The hope is that the citizens fulfilling the roles of JA and PD recognize that those are roles - they are there to present a viewpoint about the situation to the people. All polls in a CC are private - there is nothing that will prevent (nor should there be) a JA to vote innocent, or a PD to vote guilty.

If you can come up with a better manner of handling accusations, please, present it.
Article J: what is the Will of the People? Something like: the Will of the People is the aggregate (?) wish of the citizens of our country. It is determined by unanimity in a completed discussion, or by the majority vote in a poll. "completed discussion" and "poll" perhaps need to be qualified somewhere.
Now that's rather good description of the WotP that I've seen. It is somewhat nebulous, because it has changed throughout different DG's. It's hard to define exactly what it is, because there are many situations, and you don't want to bog down the process. Do you want leaders to poll every little detail, You're going to find it hard to get good leaders. Do you want leaders to poll only vague concepts, you'll find people complaining about not being involved.

I don't have a good answer, because I don't think there is a definitive answer. To paraphrase, I don't know what WotP is, but I know it when I see it.
Article K: obviously needs some safeguards against abuse. Apart from that, a great way to retire inactive or runaway officials.That's in the CoL on this.
Article M: I don't like the exception.
That's an exception that's been there for a while. It would make the game somewhat interesting to remove it, pushing discussions not about renegotiate for X gold, but about should we renegotiate with Y.

-- Ravensfire

Also, some special people got legal immunity, so no need to glorify the constitution.

I'm torn between reporting this as a troll or asking what you're talking about. Maybe you should respond by PM. Also you should take this as a suggestion to leave baseless allegations out of it, or just leave.

Okay, I haven't seen much here that is *really* worth keeping. So here I go:

[Removed and moved elsewhere]

It's about lunch time, so I'm going to go eat. I do plan on including a Code of Laws, and possibly a Code of Standards. These will include most of the things missing above. I also think I forgot acouple of duties for the Council of Culture, I'll edit it with the ones I forgot later.

Edit (incomplete Code of Laws):

[Removed and moved elsewhere]

Will edit it more with Polling Standards, Freedom of Information, etc.

... I don't want to see leaders "at most" initiate discussions and polls.

I think we agree on this - I just wanted to point out that IMO the logical consequence of making the WotP the overriding authority on everything is that officials will not be able to shape the policy of their department (or create a consistent policy at all, for that matter), and consequently cannot do much more than take some initiatives and hope for the best.
Here are a few ideas for a different balance between leaders and WotP:
1. Leaders are elected based on a policy, a set of ideas on how to run the office. A vote for the person means a vote for the policy. Leader is responsible for carrying out this policy. If the citizens at some moment vote against the policy the leader has the option to resign (or can "threaten" to do so before the vote).
2. To overturn a leader's decision, a 67% (or so) majority vote is needed.
3. We make a list of "unimportant game decisions" - everything not on the list is "important". To make important decisions, a leader first has to consult the people. Leaders may make unimportant decisions without prior consultation. Citizens can request a discussion/poll on these. The list of "unimportant decisions" should be amendable.

Items 1 and 2 will hopefully make elections more interesting, item 3 formalizes the idea of focussing discussion on the main issues.


That's something that's been discussed for quite some time. Likewise, imagine a PD that refused to defend someone because they thought they were guilt! :eek:

In RL, that happens all the time. If the PD is a good lawyer, then he should have no qualms defending a guilty client. The only (unpractical, as it involves too many people) solution I can see is to have a JA, a PD, and a number of judges. Under the current system, the accused cannot really confide in the PD and is better off seeking his own defender.
I don't know a good way to deal with CC's. Last game we had none I think, and I would say that is the best situation.


Now that's rather good description of the WotP that I've seen. It is somewhat nebulous, because it has changed throughout different DG's. It's hard to define exactly what it is, because there are many situations, and you don't want to bog down the process. Do you want leaders to poll every little detail, You're going to find it hard to get good leaders. Do you want leaders to poll only vague concepts, you'll find people complaining about not being involved.

I don't have a good answer, because I don't think there is a definitive answer. To paraphrase, I don't know what WotP is, but I know it when I see it.


As the WotP is the most important concept in the decision making process, there should be some idea on what it is, don't you think? :)

That's an exception that's been there for a while. It would make the game somewhat interesting to remove it, pushing discussions not about renegotiate for X gold, but about should we renegotiate with Y.


I just don't like anything involving reloading - it's no big deal.

I'm torn between reporting this as a troll or asking what you're talking about. Maybe you should respond by PM. Also you should take this as a suggestion to leave baseless allegations out of it, or just leave.

It is indeed baseful, but thin-skinned people over-reporting opinions preempts freedom of speech, but in fairness, this is part of the reason some left.
Nobody's constitution is telling, as I support this, as it is nobody's "baby" to make themselves look good, and other look bad. Nobody understood the DG, it is all about fun, and not about putting people down. I see some "veterans" only surface to squash "newbees" with their own legal "expertise" from past DG's, and be very insisting on us being 100 % submissive to their corrective desires, just to leave the game to rot when the game actually starts. We got way too many founding fathers and way to few citizens to populate our realms and provide meaningful gameplay. Please call me a fascist, but I prefer the moderatorsto provide a ruleset and administer the Judiciary, since these areas float into each other. Too many masters cause chaos.
And about founding fathers... I found DGV to be quite fun Term 1- Term IV, but collapsed after that.

I much prefer a moderator run forum and ruleset, and no more mickey mouse putsches by teens and other delinquents to overrule the DG legislation in small judicial posting and polling coups. Frankly put, I want moderators to handle rulesets, and the players to play through the games.
I have had enough veteran "guidance", and just want to play in tidy and orderly environments.

Thanks
P

Article K: obviously needs some safeguards against abuse. Apart from that, a great way to retire inactive or runaway officials.
I agree on this part. There should be safeguards against the abuse of this system. If a person in the game deaply hates that particular person would use the recall as his weapon to make his or her life in the demogame missrable.

I do agree with Dave on "where is domestic". I beleve we should keep Domestic around for the pourpouse of selecting city spots, mobalization, slider control, and budgeting our funds. I dont mind that culture gets the cut but domestic should stay.


1. Leaders are elected based on a policy, a set of ideas on how to run the office. A vote for the person means a vote for the policy. Leader is responsible for carrying out this policy. If the citizens at some moment vote against the policy the leader has the option to resign (or can "threaten" to do so before the vote).
I disagree, I beleve that a leader should be elected based on how well he or she handles her job well and not because of policies.


Article E. The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall be formed by the House and Mayors.

Section 1. The Mayors
A mayor is charged with the management and affairs of a single city. They are also charged with the defense and protection of there city.

Section 2. The House
The house is formed by the citizenry, and is charged with the formation and passing of laws.

Something pops into mind. Should there be an elected possition for speeker of the house?

The feeling is gone, and the circle is broken. Just like water under a burning bridge, heh? A million words, but nothing is spoken. If you don't know if you have found what you are looking for, then why post at all? So when you tell me what you tell me, I am suppose to listen and reaffirm sometype of empathy? Yeah right.

So are we going to discuss the constitutions, or there makers?

To try and minimize confusion from attempting to discuss 3(!) rulesets in one thread, I've created a new thread for my proposal.

It's incorporated some of the comments and suggestions posted thus far (and thanks, btw, for an excellent WotP definition, zyxy).

Link to thread for Ravensfire's proposal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2938136)

We've now got three proposal - Nobody's, Ravensfire's and Strider's. Let's spend a few days developing them, poll the three of them, polish that and post it for ratification.

-- Ravensfire

We've now got three proposal - Nobody's, Ravensfire's and Strider's. Let's spend a few days developing them, poll the three of them, polish that and post it for ratification.

-- Ravensfire

Agreed, mine is posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=2938212#post2938212)

Now I'm off to get some supper and to take a shower. Then I will be full and clean for the Paintball competition I have tonight, inwhich afterwards I get the satisfaction of taking another shower (and likely eating again).

Has this proposal been updated with any comments made during or after the vote? It might be a good idea to do a refresh.