Okay, once we get a constitution put together, how are we going to decide to keep it? I propose we poll the entire constitution in one piece, and requiring 3/4ths of the census. We can decide on the census by putting up a poll about 2 or 3 days before the poll the constitution, and basing it off of that number.

Are there any other suggestions, or is this alright with everyone?

Okay, once we get a constitution put together, how are we going to decide to keep it? I propose we poll the entire constitution in one piece, and requiring 3/4ths of the census. We can decide on the census by putting up a poll about 2 or 3 days before the poll the constitution, and basing it off of that number.

What do you mean by census? I think it shoud be 2/3 or 7/10 instead of 3/4.

What do you mean by census? I think it shoud be 2/3 or 7/10 instead of 3/4.
The census is the total active voters in the end of the elections

What do you mean by census? I think it shoud be 2/3 or 7/10 instead of 3/4.

Basically the census is the estimated number of active citizens in the game. Basically, there could be 100 people registered inside of the citizen registry, but only 25 who are actually playing the game. It would be illogical to take 2/3 of 100 people, when 75 of those people will never look here and vote. The census is basically those 25 that actually take part in the game.

maybe 6/10 instead, 3/4 seems to much. run the poll for longer, it can take a while to fully interpret the constitution.

Basically the census is the estimated number of active citizens in the game. Basically, there could be 100 people registered inside of the citizen registry, but only 25 who are actually playing the game. It would be illogical to take 2/3 of 100 people, when 75 of those people will never look here and vote. The census is basically those 25 that actually take part in the game.

Just a quick question: how will it be determined which people are actually taking part in the game? I ask because I'm not really planning on posting too much initially (as my post count would indicate), but I am going to be voting and keeping up-to-date on what's happening. I'd just like to make sure that my vote wouldn't be discounted or anything. If you just based it on who votes, of course, that wouldn't be a problem, but from what you're saying I'm assuming that abstaining counts as voting against... please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Just a quick question: how will it be determined which people are actually taking part in the game? I ask because I'm not really planning on posting too much initially (as my post count would indicate), but I am going to be voting and keeping up-to-date on what's happening. I'd just like to make sure that my vote wouldn't be discounted or anything. If you just based it on who votes, of course, that wouldn't be a problem, but from what you're saying I'm assuming that abstaining counts as voting against... please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Basically, were just create a poll inside of the Polls Forum. No need to post or anything, you just have to vote inside of that poll. No, you do not need to post to be active, we would like you to though :).

Basically, were just create a poll inside of the Polls Forum. No need to post or anything, you just have to vote inside of that poll. No, you do not need to post to be active, we would like you to though :).

Okay, no worries then. It's not that I purposely won't post, it's just that so far I haven't really seen many opportunities to, since this is my first demogame and I'm still trying to learn everything (and I'm not the kind of person who's okay to just jump into something). Anyway, sounds good. :goodjob:

My rationale for ratification decisions is simple. The majority must win, unless there are so few people voting that they cannot be considered representative.

I would like to see this ratification criteria:

At Least 1/3 the census votes AND
2/3 yes votes with no minimum number of votes, OR
a majority of yes votes with 2/3 or more of the census voting

examples:
60 people mark themselves "present" in a poll to verify citizenship

31 yes - 29 no : passes (majority of 100% of the census)
29 yes - 31 no : fails (less than a majority)

21 yes - 19 no : passes (majority of 2/3 of the census, the smallest number of yes votes to win with a simple majority)

26 yes - 13 no : passes (with one less voting than the example above, we now need 5 more yes votes to ratify)

20 yes - 10 no : passes (2/3 of those voting voted yes)
15 yes - 10 no : fails (less than 2/3)

14 yes - 7 no : passes (smallest number of yes votes which can ratify)

13 yes - 6 no : fails (fewer than 1/3 the census votes)

At Least 1/3 the census votes AND
2/3 yes votes with no minimum number of votes, OR
a majority of yes votes with 2/3 or more of the census voting

I'm guessing you mean simple majority, correct? 50.01% of the vote.

how about we do this, we open a week long poll to see how many people are really playing. we require 6/10 of the number who voted, yes i am active in the demogame to accept the constitution.

I say a 2/3 majority of the actual voters (or active citizens, whatever is preferred) should do the trick.

What happens if the constitution doesn't pass though? Do we get a debate on what should be redone/rewritten, or is it all the way back to the drawingboard perhaps even with a diffferent team of founding fathers...? (being sensible I'd say option 1... hehe)

Usually we tweak a bit and try again, but there has also been an instance of a new founder stepping forward with a new set of rules.

There's a lot to be said for ratifying article by article, with the obvious potential problem that inconsistencies could show up that way.

DaveShack, you must be crazy.:p Ratifying them article by article was a headache, because inconsistancy will inevitably arise, and because very few will actually have the patience to vote in that many seperate polls.

Better for the constitution to be designed by the committee and approved as a whole - the framework for government works better if each piece is designed to fit perfectly with the other.

Don't go to menthol on an the constitution ,or it will become so lenghty that most won't read it.And lets be a bit tolerant on procedure errors ,especially at start.

I don't see a need for player ratification ,atleast not at this point ,many new members won't have the insight to direct such a vote in the good way anyway.We have plenty of vets around here who can easily create a draft constitution and let it be accepted by other regular players.We can ammend possible errors later ,at this time it's better to work in a timeline towards the start of the game to get it going.

Single up or down vote - simple majority.

It's too hard and difficult to determine the census - how do you define activity? So don't do it, just got with a simple approach.

-- Ravensfire

Single up or down vote - simple majority.

It's too hard and difficult to determine the census - how do you define activity? So don't do it, just got with a simple approach.

-- Ravensfire

A convert? :eek:

Personally I'd rather have simple majority of those voting for darn near everything. I've never liked supermajorities, since their main purpose is to either lock in a decision from being able to change in the future, or as a tool of the minority to hold up the works.

This doesn't match my earlier position, but to fill in those who don't know the history, we usually have a supermajority requirement, and I'm always trying to water it down so a simple majority can effect change. :)

Umm, this is about accepting the Constitution, not amending it.

Or did I mis-read the initial post?

-- Ravensfire

Should have known it was too good to be true...

Then again, whadda ya say, shouldn't we make amending it easy this time around too, given we're in uncharted waters? ;)

Should have known it was too good to be true...

Then again, whadda ya say, shouldn't we make amending it easy this time around too, given we're in uncharted waters? ;)

Write the Constitution right - with general statements and use the Code of Laws, which should be easily changed, to fill in the details.

The Constitution should provide the basic framework from which we build our governement structure. As such, it needs to be difficult to change, to ensure that such fundamental changes are difficult to enact, and will require most of the voters to support the change.

Quite honestly, however, if you require a long enough poll period (4 days or so), I would suggest dropping the census requirement entirely. Keep the Constitution amendment threshold at 2/3, the Code of Laws at simple majority and call it done.

-- Ravensfire

Write the Constitution right - with general statements and use the Code of Laws, which should be easily changed, to fill in the details.

The Constitution should provide the basic framework from which we build our governement structure. As such, it needs to be difficult to change, to ensure that such fundamental changes are difficult to enact, and will require most of the voters to support the change.

Quite honestly, however, if you require a long enough poll period (4 days or so), I would suggest dropping the census requirement entirely. Keep the Constitution amendment threshold at 2/3, the Code of Laws at simple majority and call it done.

-- Ravensfire

Hear hear, I agree completely

Going to go off-topic (sense everyone else is anyway).

Maybe it would be better to allow basic changes of the constitution with a simple majority, but fundamental ones with a 2/3 vote. That way we can make the necessary edits to keep things running smoothly, but not have to worry about someone barely managing to pass a law that have the population dislikes.

With the addition of the time-based sunset clause (where amendments go back up to vote every ?? days, terms, turns, whatever) that should make rule changes much more friendly.

Going to go off-topic (sense everyone else is anyway).

Maybe it would be better to allow basic changes of the constitution with a simple majority, but fundamental ones with a 2/3 vote. That way we can make the necessary edits to keep things running smoothly, but not have to worry about someone barely managing to pass a law that have the population dislikes.

With the addition of the time-based sunset clause (where amendments go back up to vote every ?? days, terms, turns, whatever) that should make rule changes much more friendly.

You're probably getting tired of me asking for clarification ;) but what is a 'basic change' and what differentiates it from a fundamental change?

Yes to sunset clauses.

-the Wolf

You're probably getting tired of me asking for clarification ;) but what is a 'basic change' and what differentiates it from a fundamental change?

Yes to sunset clauses.

-the Wolf

When I said basic change, I meant something small that wouldn't effect the game much. Mainly just fixing something that doesn't seem to be working properly. Fundamental was meant as more game changing, instead of just fixing.

When I said basic change, I meant something small that wouldn't effect the game much. Mainly just fixing something that doesn't seem to be working properly. Fundamental was meant as more game changing, instead of just fixing.

In that case I agree. Thanks for answering.

-the Wolf

When I said basic change, I meant something small that wouldn't effect the game much. Mainly just fixing something that doesn't seem to be working properly. Fundamental was meant as more game changing, instead of just fixing.

*decloak*
Don't wanna be a pain in the A***, but who decides what's a basic change and what's a fundamental one?? The government? Or just the president? :hmm: It should at least be the government as a whole...
And to completely get annoying: To me a "basic change" IS a fundamental one.... :confused: Shouldn't it be "major change" vs. "minor change"?? *cloak* ;)

*decloak*
Don't wanna be a pain in the A***, but who decides what's a basic change and what's a fundamental one?? The government? Or just the president? :hmm: It should at least be the government as a whole...
And to completely get annoying: To me a "basic change" IS a fundamental one.... :confused: Shouldn't it be "major change" vs. "minor change"?? *cloak* ;)

I assume that it is included in the constitution, at least it should be.

-the Wolf

When I said basic change, I meant something small that wouldn't effect the game much. Mainly just fixing something that doesn't seem to be working properly. Fundamental was meant as more game changing, instead of just fixing.
That's a difference in perception, and is nearly impossible to get strong concensus on. You cannot put "basic change" and "fundamental change" in the Constitution without generating massive confusion.

Keep the Constitution simple by using it as a framework, set the amendment at 4 day poll, 2/3 majority in support. Put the details in the Code of Laws, 3 day poll, simple majority in support.

-- Ravensfire

That's a difference in perception, and is nearly impossible to get strong concensus on. You cannot put "basic change" and "fundamental change" in the Constitution without generating massive confusion.

Keep the Constitution simple by using it as a framework, set the amendment at 4 day poll, 2/3 majority in support. Put the details in the Code of Laws, 3 day poll, simple majority in support.

-- Ravensfire


Yes, it's important to keep the constitution simple, but you do need an article in the constitution on how to change it.

-the Wolf.

Yes, it's important to keep the constitution simple, but you do need an article in the constitution on how to change it.

-the Wolf.

Yup - that's in my post.

-- Ravensfire

*decloak*
Don't wanna be a pain in the A***, but who decides what's a basic change and what's a fundamental one?? The government? Or just the president? :hmm: It should at least be the government as a whole...
And to completely get annoying: To me a "basic change" IS a fundamental one.... :confused: Shouldn't it be "major change" vs. "minor change"?? *cloak* ;)

We would have to decide on that, but I'm figuring (right now) that the best option would to have the Judiciary decide what type of change it is.

Also, from my experience... a complex constitution is a must. Civ3 DG1 and DG2 both had extremely complex constitutions. No problems in either of them, DG3 we went in and made it simple... we started having massive troubles. Complexity eliminates the need for controversy.

We need to eliminate this mindset that you have to read the constitution inorder to play the game. I've never read the large majority of our constitutions throughly, unless I helped to design it.. I barely know what's in the damn thing. Hell, I don't think I even looked at the constitution untill DG3.

3/4 vote would make the most sence. That way it is the most acceptable to all