This shouldn't be a very controversial or long discussion. Basically, what should the rights of every demogame Citizen be?

Right to Assemble
Right to Vote
Right to Free Spech
Right to Free Movement
Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
Right of Representation

Any I'm forgetting?

That pretty much sums up our citizens rights :).

Right to Assemble

I’m good with this if the 'Right to Assemble' includes joining parties if the citizens so wishes.

-the Wolf

right to be elected

right to be elected

No, this would imply the right to win an election, which isn't quite what we want to say. I think "The right to be eligible to hold office" is what you're aiming for.

We haven't had the usual question of "what is the right to free movement". :)

This right fits in with potential local government systems where the residents of a city or province might get special benefits based on their location.

No, this would imply the right to win an election, which isn't quite what we want to say. I think "The right to be eligible to hold office" is what you're aiming for.
yeah thats it

I beleve we should add in "The right to be eligible to hold office" and "The right to run in an election" (Not sure about the termonology of this one since I feel that all citizens should not be denyed the right to run for an office, regardless of individual flaws and party affiliation)

I think there should be some right to do anything not specificly forbinden by our consitution. (or CFC rules but this goes without saying)

Another thing I'd like to see is implied citizenship. Simply put, we should not deny anyone the rights of a citizen because of a technicality like not being in the citizen registry. If someone forgets to officially sign up, instead of making a big deal of it, we should just point out what needs to be done and give them a reasonable time period to do it.

Another thing I'd like to see is implied citizenship. Simply put, we should not deny anyone the rights of a citizen because of a technicality like not being in the citizen registry. If someone forgets to officially sign up, instead of making a big deal of it, we should just point out what needs to be done and give them a reasonable time period to do it.

Easy enough - "A citizen is any member of the civFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry."

Done.

-- Ravensfire

No i think we definantly need to have citizenship only through the citizens thread.

Citizens must sign the registry vote from other places, who decided what a citizen is, some might like to only lurk and vote which is fine. some might only post everynow and then. But to do these things they must sign the citizens registry.

Other wise who gets legal protection of our rights ect. For instance if a off topic member just pops in and votes, or if a jerk comes on and tells everyone whats going to happen in the game (by cheating) then the moderators should ban them or kick them. but if a citizen plays ahead the moditators should leave it to the court.

I think a compromise can be reached here: a person does not have to post in the citizen's registry before they can post anything (some might miss the forum and jump into one of the sub-forums first) but must register within let's say 48 hours of being asked to by PM. Also someone might not get a PM before they log off and not come back on for a couple of days so this should apply to their first log on after the PM is sent.

-the Wolf

I think that citizens rights are only guranteed to people who register in the citizens thread

Again - why? What benefit is there from requiring someing to post in a thread? None.

Drawbacks - plenty. People patrol that, looking to yank people around for a meaningless mistake, an oversight. Or have you forgotten about that? DG6, Term 1 - go look, and tell me what benefit came from the citizen registry.

Make the only act that matters the one needed for citizenship - participation.

-- Ravensfire

If we really want the citizen registry to be accurate, we could ask for a SQL which looks for who has posted and voted in DemoGame forums, and populate the citizen registry automatically. Maybe it could even update a "last posted" field.

What do citizens gain from the registry?

A place to make their choices for city / unit names known.
"Recognition" as being a citizen. :confused: What does the Demogame gain from the registry?

Census information? Nope, we've gone to using the average number of votes in elections.
The possibility that non-citizens can be identified and their votes invalidated? This is a bad thing for the game because it can make the game less fun.
A way for legal eagles to get their jollies? Well, yes but is that what we want? :shakehead Let's give it a rest from being a mandatory requirement, at least at the Constitution level. If problems develop we can always add it into the CoL. :thumbsup:

Here is the draft rule for the Constitution:


A citizen is any member of the civFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry.
All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
The Right to Assemble
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
The Right to Free Speech
The Right to Free Movement
The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
The Right to Presumption of Innocense unless proven guilty
The Right of Representation
These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times.

The game is about buliding a goverment to play the game, the legitimate goverment elected by the citizens. Citizens must be "some one" other wise how will census or quorm work. Also some people find the courts and such fun. For a citizen to be represented it means they must be a citizen.

How about this one, lovingly ripped off from article 1 of the US constitution

"Right of the citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I could see this as being important should the citizens decide overwhelmingly that there are problems with the constitution, or one of the branches of government. By consensus a vote of no confidence may then be initiated that, if successful, would require a dissolution and general election for the branch of government in question or a constitutional convention to address problems with the constitution.

Cheers!

We have used "redress of grievances" in the past to mean the ability to accuse someone of a crime. One alternative way of saying the same thing has been "demand satisfaction". I've been kinda ignoring this one because it provides too many people with a sword that they are unfortunately all too willing to use.

In the sense of "right to protest", that is covered quite well within freedom of speech. The ability to petition the government to make a change will be handled in the article on decision making, basically by saying that a majority vote is sufficient to compel action except where a higher requirement is specified in the Constitution. The only other place a higher requirement would show up is in the article on amendments.

The game is about buliding a goverment to play the game, the legitimate goverment elected by the citizens. Citizens must be "some one" other wise how will census or quorm work. Also some people find the courts and such fun. For a citizen to be represented it means they must be a citizen.

So what's wrong with "A citizen is any member of CFC that participates in the Demogame."

Why be so exclusive? Why not PREVENT some of the problems that HAVE already occured, but making the ACT of participating the sole criteria for being a citizen?

Census/Quorum is based on the election polls, which are private. I don't know who voted in them, do you? I'm certainly not going to ask TF to validate every election poll. That's the ONLY way to verify that, under DG VII rules, that we have a "valid" census. I'm pretty sure that we have a few "non-citizens" that vote in our elections.

The DG concept is about inclusion and fun - not exclusion. Keep it simple - if they participate in the DG in any way, they are a citizen.

-- Ravensfire

I found it real funny how Alpha tried to play peacemaker and both sides ignored him. :D It's real funny until you think about it then it's real sad. :(

-KL

Actually if the poll comes out in favor of requiring registration then I'm thinking about this:

Any law which uses registration in the Citizen's Registry as a criteria for allowing or disallowing any action must permit a grace period of not less than [insert days], to allow the person to register.
I was thinking this has to be at least the amount of time we use as a maximum unannounced absense. In Civ3DG7 this would be 1 week.

OK i am happy with this but When i get elected i dont want people complaining about my La Cosa Nostras tactics. I could con people in Off Topic to vote for me and also get my freinds at home to sign up simply to vote.

OK i am happy with this but When i get elected i dont want people complaining about my La Cosa Nostras tactics. I could con people in Off Topic to vote for me and also get my freinds at home to sign up simply to vote.

That's OK, I'll just bring in the people from Civ4 General Discussions.:p

If your friends end up playing Civ or even better participating in the DG, then it's a bonus. :)

Natural Rights. :rolleyes:

How about a Hobbesian view: You can do whatever you want where the law is silent. ;)

(Note: I realise that there's no way anyone would accept this, but hey, it WOULD be simpler. :lol:)

I actually wrote something like that into a previous DG constitution. The US Constitution has it written in too, as the 9th and 10th amendments:


Amendment IX


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution Working Draft (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=141064) has been updated to allow lower forms of law to require registration in the citizen registry, with a mandatory grace period of at least 48 hours after a citizen is notified of the requirement, before any action can be taken.

That wraps up this section, right?

I have nothing against that. infact i think it is good. didnt i post about this near the start of something?

I have nothing against that. infact i think it is good. didnt i post about this near the start of something?

You did, but I was holding off on the results of the poll to see if it was generally accepted that we still need the registry. It's a close vote, so I also thought about taking my chances and ignoring this issue, and if the Constitution gets ratified then so be it. I'm honest enough though to try to accomodate the (slight) majority's wishes.

The added sections are too complicated to fit in with the rest of the Constitution, but I don't want to say "lower forms of law may have a stricter requirement" without including the grace period language as well. Anyone skilled in logic should be able to see what would happen if the whole subsection were put into the CoL and we get the same court makeup we've had the last 2-3 games. ;)

If we are going to have the Citizen Registry be 'optional' (from the Working Draft Constitution, it says they are 'encouraged to register'), perhaps we should change the title of it?

We could just make it a thread where people can make one post about themselves (ie; timezones, age, aspirations, unit names, city names), but if they don't want to, they don't have to. It could be "Citizen Databank" or something; a registry where registration is optional just seems a bit weird.