We haven't even touched one of the main issues from DG1, the "decisions" clause. From dutchfire's proposal we have: note, this is unedited, there were comments in the original thread which fixed some typos and incorrect language, be gentle. :)


Decisions of the people
The following ways of decision making by the people are allowed (in order of seniority):
Initiative, a binding poll started by a citizen. This can only be repealed by moderators and more recent initiatives.
Recall, a poll made by a citizen, that may remove an official from his position.
Mandate, the election of an official. The official can make decisions that can be recalled.
Approval, The absence of non-approving citizens in a discussion that has been open for 3 days.


Background information

Historically this concept was covered by a rather simple clause which usually said something like "Officials must plan and act according to the Will of the People", and it was often abbreviated as WOTP. The game organization has cycled between having strong officials who could act in absense of disapproval of the people, and having weak officials who could not act without explicit approval of the people. If officials get too strong, the people get disenchanted with the process and hold their comments due to feeling that they won't be listened to. If the officials get too weak, then interest in being an official drops and we get uncontested elections and open offices, and those who do step up may not give it their all because they know they're really just puppets.

The Question

There is no doubt the DG1 system needs to be simplified to have only one kind of binding poll. The question of what was an initiative and what was a referendum got far more action than the game itself did. The concept behind the distinction was a good one, but it should have been handled as a side clause and not as a different kind of poll.

At issue is whether officials need to listen to polls initiated by citizens. In the past, there were some officials who held the position that the only polls which were binding were polls opened by the official responsible for the area covered by the poll. This would get us into trouble because the responsible official would sometimes post a seemingly nonbiased poll with a hidden bias, in the form of leaving options the official disagreed with off the poll choices. With the poll being a choice between what the official wanted and an obviously bad alternative, the official could get his/her way and be shielded by the "will of the people". If a citizen cried foul and tried to overturn the decision by posting a poll between the official's preferred approach and a reasonable alternative, the poll would be declared invalid.

Now, let's examine some general principles and then try again to come up with language which captures the essence of what we want for decision making.

Officials must be open to input from the citizens. Since citizens automatically have such a right, we shouldn't need to require the official to explicitly request such input. If input is given and it is overwhelmingly in favor of an action, the official must follow the input, or poll the issue. If no input is given, the official is free to choose between acting or polling. If input is mixed, the official may choose to go with the side giving the strongest input, or may choose to poll the decision. A citizen may initiate a poll on an issue, however it is more polite to first ask the official to do so.

I agree with those principles you wrote up.

Honestly, why do we need to explain what a "mandate" is, what a "initiative" is, and what an "approval" is? Imagine trying to explain to a newbie why we've divided polls like this. Who cares? If it doesn't add to the fun of the game and just makes things more confusing, why bother?

We elect officials to represent our views. They shouldn't have to necessarily do what we say (the WOTP) during the term, because, in effect, we gave them the power to act (in our best interests) when we elected them.

Isn't electing someone basically telling them that you are giving them the power to make a decision? What's the point of electing someone, if you take away their power to make decisions? When you elect them, you are giving them the ability to make decisions themselves (with the input of the citizens, but not every time)!

What if they lied during the election?

What if people decide that a certain decision isn't the best?

I don't want officials that poll everything. I don't want officials that poll nothing. I want something in the middle.

How to determine that middle is a tougher question.

-- Ravensfire

Right - my post was basically countering the "officials must do whatever the people tell them to" argument. We need to have officials that have the freedom to do what they think is best, not just what the people vote, but at the same time they need to be limited to ensure their decisions are still in the best interests of the state.

Official polls should always be binding

Even if an official knows it's not the best decision all they can do is argue their side.

Once the decision is made, unless there's call for a repoll, the official should suck it up and carry out his orders.

One way to do that is say that officials should poll major decisions, and then add a way for citizens to either force a poll, or for citizens to post a poll that would override the official.

Say, a citizen can post in the officials thread, requesting a poll on XYZ (optionally stating a date when the decision needs to be made by). If a Y other citizens agree with that request, the official has X hours/days to post a poll on that subject. If they don't, the citizen can post the poll, and the official has to follow the results.

The citizens could thus push officials into polls. Officials would be likely to post the poll to give them some control over the options. Could be a reasonable compromise without getting as complicated as the previous DG.

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire, also a citizen might have the right to declare the poll options (if Y other citizens agree).

Since it isn't too hard to imagine an official purposefully biasing poll option.

Back to what I have said before. There is no point in having officials if EVERYTHING is being voted on.

Officials should make decisions IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NATION, not by will of the people. I like the current decision making system we have. I continue to stress the points of precedent. No where in our laws did it say officials had to poll decisions, yet there were too many panzy officials (excuse me) that polled everything. As long as we lay off on all the initiative polling, we should be fine. The only exception that I see should be made, is taking out initiatives, and if an official isn't sure he can have an opinion poll (which he still doesn't have to follow.)

Agreed, polling EVERYTHING is not good either.

However, those polls that are made should not be violated.

I agree with those principles you wrote up.

Honestly, why do we need to explain what a "mandate" is, what a "initiative" is, and what an "approval" is? Imagine trying to explain to a newbie why we've divided polls like this. Who cares? If it doesn't add to the fun of the game and just makes things more confusing, why bother?


Why do we need to say what "mandate", "initiative" and "approval" are?
Because we've been into deep trouble for a few months last demogame because there was unclearity about the definition of "official" and binding in the constitution. By not clearly, and precisely defining these core principals of a demo-game, the democracy part, we could get a lot of unneccecary fights about those definitions. In my opinion, it's better to avoid this trouble by writing about 4 lines than to have another 3 months of legal "war".

Why do we need to say what "mandate", "initiative" and "approval" are?
Because we've been into deep trouble for a few months last demogame because there was unclearity about the definition of "official" and binding in the constitution. By not clearly, and precisely defining these core principals of a demo-game, the democracy part, we could get a lot of unneccecary fights about those definitions. In my opinion, it's better to avoid this trouble by writing about 4 lines than to have another 3 months of legal "war".

Considering Civilization 3 DG3 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=51315), DG4 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=70898), DG5 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94616), DG6 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113684), and DG7 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130149) didn't need to define what they were, yet they still managed to be successful (more so than Civ4 DG1 and its ruleset), do you still think it is necessary? I would cite DG1 and DG2's constitutions as well, but they are unavailable. You look at those rulesets, and they are simpler and more to-the-point, something I think we need to think about when writing up ours.

Do we really need an overly-detailed ruleset to stop "legal wars", or can we just trust ourselves to agree to do what's best for the game, and, if we get stuck, to compromise in the interests of this game?

and they are simpler and more to-the-point,

I support any attempt to make this simpler, and more to the point. And I know that most of you could probably do it better than I did. But this needs to be done.
These constitutions mentioned by you are complicated too. For example, take a look at what the civIII DG III code of laws say about the judiciary:


A. Judicial Matters
1. Judicial Review
a. Any citizen may call judicial review whenever a question of rule interpretation arises.
b. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members agree with the review2. Public Investigations
I. General Principles
a. No Member of the Judiciary may initiate or sponsor a
Public Investigation.
b. A member of the Judiciary is considered absent if they do
not respond either by post or PM within 24 hours of being
contacted.
c. A citizen may only be Investigated once per charge, per
particular event.
d. The Verdict of the Public Investigation is final and
may not be appealed.
e. The term "law" shall apply to any part of the Constitution,
Code of Laws or Judicial Reviews for the Demogame III.
f. If a Member of the Judiciary is the Accused in a
Public Investigation, they are immediately suspended
for that case.

g. If a member of the judiciary is determined to be absent,
or is the Accused in a Public Investigation, they may be
replaced on a case-by-case basis by the Chief Justice.
This replacement is for that case only. If the Chief
Justice is under investigation, the President shall
determine the replacement.
This appointment must be confirmed by a Moderator.

h. The Accused is ALWAYS considered Innocent unless proven Guilty.

II. Roles of the Judiciary
a. Chief Justice
1. Supervises the efforts of the Judiciary.
2. Coordinates all activites and ensures that all cases and
reviews are handled in a timely manner.

b. Judge Advocate
1. Represents the interests of the Citizens
2. Determines if a charge is valid
3. Writes the text of the formal charge
4. If a charge is valid, presents the case of the people against
the accused

c. Public Defender
1. Represents the interests of the Accused
2. Presents the case of the accused to the people

III. Accusation
a. Any citizen may bring a charge against another citizen whom
they believe has violated our body of law.
1. The Accusation may be made in one or more of the
following ways:
i. A PM to the Judge Advocate.
ii. Anonymously via a Moderator who will pass the
accusation to the Judge Advocate.
iii. A post in the Judicial thread.
2. The Accusation must contain the following information
i. Name of the Accused.
ii. Law(s) believed to have been violated. Specific
articles do not need to be stated at this time.
iii. Time and Location of violation.
3. The Judge Advocate shall inform the Chief Justice and the
Public Defender that a Public Investigation has been filed.

IV. Investigation
a. The Judge Advocate shall investigate all charges brought
to the Judiciary to determine their validity. This
process shall be done in an expedious manner.
1. The Chief Justice shall post in the Judicial Thread that an
investigation has commenced against the Accused
i. The Accused shall be named in this post.
ii. The Accuser shall not be mentioned in this post
iii. The post shall mention the specifics of the charge.
iv. Citizens shall be asked to not reply to this post, or
discuss this case publically, but to PM any evidence
they have to the Judge Advocate
2. The Judge Advocate shall PM the Accuser, the Public Defender,
and the Accused to determine the circumstances of the case.
i. If the accusation was made anonymously, the Judge Advocate
shall utilize the Moderator as a go-between unless otherwise
given permission.
3. The Public Defender shall begin to confer with the Accused to
determine their side of the story.
i. The Public Defender may provide this evidence to the
Judge Advocate.
ii. The Public Defender is considered the Attorney of the
accused.
iii. The Accused may retain another citizen as their
Attorney if they do not wish the assitance of the
Public Defender.
iv. All communications between the accused and their
attorney are privledged and may not be disclosed with
permission of both parties.
4. If the accused confirms the charges, and wishes to plead
guilty at this point, the trial phase is skipped and the
sentencing phase begins
5. Once the investigation has concluded, the Judge Advocate
shall present the Chief Justice and the Public Defender
with the results of the investigation and his finding.
i. The Judge Advocate shall consider any charge that
they feel has a reasonable chance to be correct as
a valid charge.
ii. If the Judge Advocate finds that the charge is valid,
the case shall move to the Trial phase
A. The Judge Advocate shall send a PM to the Chief Justice
containing the formal charge. This charge shall state
the name of the Accused, or anonymous, and the specific
law(s) violated.
6. The Investigation should conclude within 36 hours of the
post in 2.B.
i. If the Investigation cannot be concluded in that time
period, a post should be made in the Judicial Thread
stating the reason for the delay.
ii. If such a post is not made, and the time expires, the
Chief Justice shall assume the responsiblities of
investigating the accusation.
iii. This post shall include the reason for the extension.
iv. This post may be made by either Judge Advocate or the
Chief Justice.
v. After one such extension, both the Judge Advocate and the
Chief Justice must concur on the need for any more extensions.
7. If the Judge Advocate finds that the charge is not valid, the
Accused and the Accuser are both notified by PM.
i. The Accuser may appeal the decision of the Judge Advocate to
the full Judiciary. If two out of three members agree
that the charge is valid, the case moves to the Trial
phase.
8. The Judge Advocate shall post in the Judicial Thread the results
of their investigation, naming both the Accused and
the Accuser.
i. If the charge is considered not valid, this post
shall include the evidence used to make that conclusion
ii. If the charge is considered valid, this post shall
include a link to the trial thread.

V. Trial
a. The Chief Justice is in charge of all phases of the trial, and
will make procedural rulings as needed.
1. The Chief Justice shall create a thread in the Citizens Forum
for the Trial
i. The initial post shall contain the specific charge from the
Judge Advocate and is titled "The People vs X", where X is
the name of the Accused.
ii. The first post is reserved for the Judge Advocate to expand
upon the charge and provide evidence
iii. The second post is reserved for the Attorney of the Accused
iv. The third post is reserved for the Accused
2. Once 24 hours after the thread was created, or after all three
parties have posted or indicated they do not wish to post, the
Chief Justice shall open the thread.
3. All citizens may produce evidence or ask questions of all
parties. All posts must be on topic, and show respect to all
parties.
4. The Chief Justice may request the Moderators to censure
individual posts or posters if these guidelines are violated.
5. The Accused may change their plea to Guilty at any point by
posting this in the thread.
i. Once this post is made, the decision shall be confirmed by
the Chief Justice.
ii. After this confirmation, the plea may not be withdrawn
iii. The trial shall immediately move to the Sentancing phase
6. 48 hours after the general discussion started, the Chief Justice
shall create a Judgement poll for each law the accused is charged
with violating.

VI. Judgement
a. The Chief Justice shall create a poll requesting the jury to
determine the Guilt or Innocence of the Accused.
1. The poll shall have three options: Guilty, Innocent or Abstain.
2. The post shall include the formal charge and a link to the
discussion.
3. Guilt is determined by a majority of the non-abstain votes.
4. No discussion is permitted in the poll.
5. The poll shall be open for 2 days (48 hours).
6. The Judiciary is not permitted to vote in this poll.
7. If, at the end of this time, the vote is tied, the Judiciary
shall meet, examine the evidence, and determine Guilt or Innocence.
8. If the accused is found Guilty, the case shall move to the
Sentencing Phase.

VII. Sentencing
a. The Chief Justice shall create a poll to determine the sentence
handed down to the guilty party.
1. If there are multiple Guilty verdicts, the Chief Justice shall
determine if multiple polls (one per charge) or a single, combined
sentence poll shall be used.
2. The poll shall include options determined by the Chief Justice
i. The Chief Justice shall consult with the Judge Advocate
and the Public Defender for appropriate options, but the
final decisions shall rest with the Chief Justice.
ii. The options shall be ranked in the order of most severe
to the least severe.
iii. There shall be no abstain option.
iv. Some of the sentencing option the Chief Justice should
consider are:
A. Expulsion (removal from the current DG)
B. Suspension (time to be determined by Moderators)
C. Impeachment (removal from office)
D. Final Warning
E. Public Apology (wording to be approved by Moderators)
F. Warning
G. No Punishement
v. The preceding list should not be considered complete.
The Judiciary may add additional options as needed.
vi. Options may be combined at the discretion of the
Judiciary for a single sentencing option.
3. There shall be a minimum of three options with varying
levels of severity.
4. There shall always be an option of "Warning"
5. The poll shall be open for 2 days (48 hours)
6. The poll shall allow each citizen to select only one option.
7. Once the poll has been closed, the Chief Justice shall
determine the sentence for the accused.
i. Each vote shall be determined as a vote for the option
selected, and all less-severe options.
ii. The sentence selected shall be the most severe sentence
that a majority of the citizens supported.
Example:
Option A - 4 Votes
Option B - 12 Votes
Option C - 13 Votees
The sentence carried out is option B.
Option A has 4 total votes. Option B has 16 total votes.
Option C has 29 total votes. A total of 29 citizens
voted, making Option B is the most severe sentence that
a majority of the citizens support with a total of 16
votes in support and 29 votes overall.
8. The Chief Justice shall announce the sentence in the sentencing
poll, and PM the accused with it.
9. Sentencing shall commence once the sentence is announced.
10. The guilty party may appeal the sentence to a Moderator.

VII. Conclusion
a. The Chief Justice shall post a summary in the Judicial Log
1. The post shall include the formal charge(s), verdict(s)
and sentence(s)
2. The post shall include a link to the discussion thread and
the sentencing poll(s).

Thanks for pointing that out - because now, as you can see, we are trying to reform the Judiciary from that convoluted system into a 1 justice, more efficient Judiciary (plus, the Judiciary is always most complicated ;)). So why don't we do the same for the rest of the Constitution? You really haven't shown me how the game is better off with explaining all those different types of decisions...

We take a risk by leaving things open, I don't think we should take risks like that, if it will only take a few minutes to prevent them.
I the time you used to post all of this, you could have also rewritten this part of the Constitution in a way you think is the best.

I think I gotta agree with Dutchfire on this point.

If you have several different kinds of polls/decisions you need to explain 'em in detail.

Though you do reach a point where you go too far, but dutchfire's proposal at the start of this is not "too far."

The decision making process can be an annoying one, and drifts between simple, and complex. We've had problems on both sides, and just as much trouble balancing the power of officials and the power of the people. Too much input from the citizens, and the officials complain about being just poll posters. Too little input, and the citizens complain about being ignored and we end up with investigations, drama and general unpleasant things.

So ...

1. All polls posted by an official concerning their area are official unless specified as otherwise. The results of these polls must be followed by that official. Officials may not post polls as an official that are completely outside their area.

2. All polls posted by a citizen are unofficial, except as detailed below. The results of these polls do not need to be followed by an official, but should be used for guidance and advice.

3. Any citizen may post a relevant request for a poll in an official's "office thread". If this request is seconded within 24 hours by another citizen, the request becomes a demand. The official must post a demanded poll within 24 hours of the seconding post, modifying only as needed to follow polling standards. If the official fails to post the demanded poll in time, any citizen may post the poll, modifying it only to follow polling standards. The results of this poll must be followed by that official.

4. Official polls that cross multiple areas are considered accepted by the official that posted the poll. Other leaders are considered bound by the poll unless they indicate in that poll otherwise.

-- Ravensfire

Considering Civilization 3 DG3, DG4, DG5, DG6, and DG7 didn't need to define what they were, yet they still managed to be successful (more so than Civ4 DG1 and its ruleset), do you still think it is necessary? I would cite DG1 and DG2's constitutions as well, but they are unavailable. You look at those rulesets, and they are simpler and more to-the-point, something I think we need to think about when writing up ours.

Do we really need an overly-detailed ruleset to stop "legal wars", or can we just trust ourselves to agree to do what's best for the game, and, if we get stuck, to compromise in the interests of this game?
Times have changed. You haven't been in this last demogame. Sure things may of worked out one way in the Civ III demogames, but your looking at a different crowd and A DIFFERENT GAME. Civilization IV is a much more complex game then Civ III, and although I understand where you're coming from, trying not to fix a problem that has occurred a lot during this demogame is absurd.

I agree with Ravenfire's proposal, however I do have one concern...


3. Any citizen may post a relevant request for a poll in an official's "office thread". If this request is seconded within 24 hours by another citizen, the request becomes a demand. The official must post a demanded poll within 24 hours of the seconding post, modifying only as needed to follow polling standards. If the official fails to post the demanded poll in time, any citizen may post the poll, modifying it only to follow polling standards. The results of this poll must be followed by that official.

-- Ravensfire

Will punishment follow? What if an official is away from a computer for 24+ hours? Should we then have a thread not only when officials are gonna be absent for long hours, but if they may not have computer access for 24 hours? What about unplanned computer absences?

I say no to all, except maybe if it is clearly obvious the official was still active during said "demand."

This might also be one thing the Deputy can go ahead and do without a "go ahead" from the Official, in case of an unexpected, undocumented, short absence.

I totally disagree with the whole concept of defining a poll as "official", because it opens too many questions due to the use of of the word official in several different contexts. Polls should be either "binding" or "non-binding".

I am also completely against limiting binding polls to those opened by the official responsible for the area of the poll. All polls which follow the relevant polling standards, if any, must be binding, no matter who opens them, unless the originator of the poll says it is not binding.

What if we write the rule using this very simple concept, and ignore the who's and when's? Is there any reason not to simplify it in this manner?

Then in the FAQ, Intro to DemoGame, or other such material, we can explain that the polite thing to do in this society is ask an official to post the poll and give a reasonable time frame to do so, before taking matters into one's own hands. That addresses the hurt egos of those officials who are insecure with themselves to the point of caring whether others help them out a little with polling. :D

I agree with DS too......

I'll give more of an opinion when I no longer feel like I'm sitting on a fence...

I agree with those principles you wrote up.

Honestly, why do we need to explain what a "mandate" is, what a "initiative" is, and what an "approval" is? Imagine trying to explain to a newbie why we've divided polls like this. Who cares? If it doesn't add to the fun of the game and just makes things more confusing, why bother?



Right. I don't care either. I'm not even sure what this "approval", "recall", etc. stuff is (a 2nd vote just for everyone to vote again that they approve or disaprove?... too much red tape). And yet, we wonder why no one wants to join. I'll tell you why - it's when we add so many rules and micromanage every aspect of the game that it becomes tedious. To a newbie, they're thinking, "I've gotta learn THIS!? Bah, I'm going to the Succession Games forum".

Remember the good old days when one discussion and one poll was all we needed?

i.e., "Do we follow donsig's city settlement plan - yes/no?".

No primary, then binding poll, no poll to approve the previous poll. It was nice an simple, and new members could follow along easily.

There were a couple of "special" kinds of polls added along the way.

When someone gets appointed to a position, it could be said that the person doing the appointment has too much power. We added an optional confirmation poll where the citizens could approve or disapprove of the nomination.

The recall poll is exactly the same thing it is in RL. An official is doing a bunch of stuff the people don't want (or not doing what they do want), but not anything illegal so it's not something the Judiciary or Mods can do anything about. Without a recall poll, we might find out about this problem a week into the month but have no recourse until the end of the month three weeks later when the next elections come along.

I complained a lot during the ruleset discussion this time last year, about excessive proceduralism in the Triumvirate system. We need to just set a course and sail along until the prevailing winds change, to keep people involved in the game, instead of reacting to each gust along the way.

I've never even heard of a recall vote. BTW, what's "Proceduralism"?


Some of us aren't political buffs, you know. :p

excessive proceduralism in the Triumvirate system

I think statements worded like this turn people away. Think think of complicated red tape.

I complained a lot during the ruleset discussion this time last year, about excessive proceduralism in the Triumvirate system.

I've never even heard of a recall vote. BTW, what's "Proceduralism"?


Some of us aren't political buffs, you know. :p



I think statements worded like this turn people away. Think think of complicated red tape.

Arguing against "excessive proceduralism" turns people away? :crazyeye:

Imagine what it would be like if I were trying to obfuscate. :p

Let's pick this one back up please.

In the Ruleset Proposal thread, I posted this:

Officials shall plan and act according to the will of the people, which may be determined from citizen input in one of the following ways, listed in priority order, highest priority first. A decision may be overruled by a later decision at an equal or higher priority.

A binding poll, which may be opened by any citizen, including the responsible official.
A discussion which predominantly favors one course of action over the alternatives.
The public's agreement that the official should make the decision on their behalf, as evidenced by lack of discussion, polling, or request for polling on the matter.


I saw the following comments:

So you believe that if a discussion is going 8-2 in favor of a decision there is no need for a poll? What about the citizens who did not have time to post in the discussion. I believe that if there is even one citizen who shows discontent of the majority decision in a discussion, then a poll is necessary.


My reply is, yes I do think that such a strong discussion, in the absense of an explicit request for a poll, does indicate the WOTP and should be used as the basis for instructions. If those 1-2 people feel so strongly about their position, they can request a poll or even post one themselves. That is the only difference between my proposal and the unwritten rule that we had in the Civ3 DG -- back in the day :old:, a poll posted by a mere citizen was not binding.

I didn't see any other comments, though admit I might have missed some.

In my opinion, this is by far the most important change we need to make to the DG1 constitution before we start DG2. Let's get this nailed down so we can move on.

From the Judiciary thread:


Just goes to show I don't understand your distinction between initiative and referendum. All I know is (according to your definition) one covers the here and now while the other covers subsequent decisions as well (has the force of law as you put it).


It was a bad idea to have that distinction. You'll see in this game's proposal I eliminated the difference between referendum and initiative and said (or at least tried to say) that a later poll can reverse an earlier one.

A better idea on duration would be to include the intended duration in the poll itself. For example "Shall we stay at peace for the next 40 turns (yes/no/abstain)." Successful polls of this type can be recorded in a common place as currently active long-term decisions, and edited out when no longer in effect.