In the following posts you will find a ruleset I have written up in the past few days. Before you read and critique please read the following:

1. The purpose of this is not to create a ruleset ready for the game, but to find out the little things (that we haven't really polled) that we agree and disagree on.

2. Everything written does not rebuke anything the past polls have polled (for lack of better terms.)

3. You will find many things we haven't polled and a few things I felt were to major to just place upon my opinion.

4. In red you will find little side comments I have provided to make the populace focus on certain points

5. Please do not say "this ruleset is fine" or "this ruleset is bad" Please point our rules or sets of rules you disagree on.

6. The articles can be put into two separate threads (as they were with this demogame.) They are just separated by posts for the purpose of this thread.

7. As people crtique I will do my best to incorporate everyones viewpoints. All additions will be in blue and all removals will be stricken

8. Note *- Name is just used as a placeholder. The official name can be decided on later. I have however, used the judiciary names that are being used this DG to avoid confusion.

Article A - Constitution
I. The Law
A. The law shall consist of: (in order of importance)
1. The forum rules
I. represented by the moderators. The moderators may veto anything done during this demogame.
2. This constitution
3. lower forms of law
I. lower forms of law may be made according to this constitution. These lower forms of law may not contradict the constitution.

II. Constitutional Rights
A. Any member of the Civilization Fanatics Forums may participate in this game of democracy. To get the right to vote they need to register in the citizen's registry, and apply to the game of democracy group (done in the user control panel).

B. Citizens have the following rights, only limited by the forum rules:
1. Freedom of Speech
2. Eligibility to hold an office
3. Entitled to a fair and speedy trial
4. Right to vote
5. Right to Assemble

III. Decision Making
A. The following ways of decision making by the people are allowed (in order of seniority):
1. Initiative: A binding poll started by a citizen. This can only be repealed by moderators and more recent initiatives.
2. Recall: A poll to remove an official from office.
2. Mandate: The election of an official. The official can make decisions that can be recalled.
3. Approval: The absence of non-approving citizens in a discussion that has been open for 3 days.
IV. Elections
A. All elections will be at the same time.
B. Before the elections begin, a nomination thread has to be open for 3 days, listing all positions for which elections will be held.
C. Election polls shall be private.
D. The candidate with the most votes at the end of the election will win the election.
1. If two or more candidates tie, run-off polls should be held until one candidate wins the election.
V. Playing The Save
A. No person may play the save other than a Designated Player specifically tasked to do so, or an official who is required to attempt certain actions to get information about what is possible in the game.
B. If any action must be performed outside a scheduled play session, to obtain information about possible options, the game must then be immediately closed without saving, and without performing further actions.
C. Obtaining information which would not be visible to someone playing the game, at the current point in time reflected by the current saved game or a previous saved game, by any mechanism, is prohibited. As noted in Section 2 of this Article, actions performed by an official, where performing the action is the only way to determine options, are permitted as long as the game is immediately closed following such investigation.
D. Inadvertent discovery of information shall not result in any penalty, provided no attempt is made to further disseminate the information or use it to advantage within the game.
E. Use of any exploits is prohibited. No person may manipulate the game in any way other than by normal play mechanisms, unless expressly permitted by law.
VI. Judiciary
A. There shall always be a judiciary, consisting of 3 members.
1. The Chief Justice*, Judge Advocate*, and the Public Defender*.
B. The Judiciary will review and clarify the constitution and any other type of law on citizens request.
1. These reviews and clarifications will be saved in an appropriate thread, and will be called an Inquiry.
C. The Judiciary will post their procedures at the start of term.
D. Any citizen may ask for legal help from the Public Defender.
1. The Public Defender must give this help privately unless he is involved in the case himself.
I. Then the Chief Justice will have to give the citizen legal help.
E. The Judge Advocate will defend the cause of the citizenry.
VII. Amendment Process
A. This constitution shall have to be ratified in a public poll open for at least 4 days.
I. The majority of non-abstain votes cast will have to be yes for this constitution to be ratified.
B. The constitution may be amended in a poll open for at least 4 days and public.
I. 60% of the non-abstain votes cast in such poll have to be yes for the amendment to be ratified.
C. Minor changes may be made, but will only be official if no-one has opposed the change within 5 days. Otherwise, the change should be treated as an amendment.

Still putting in most of the comments

Article B - Code of Laws

I. Legislative Branch
A. This branch consists of one house known as Citizens Assembly.
B. The Citizens Assembly shall consist of all citizens of the Nation. The Citizens Assembly shall be presided over by the Censor.
C. Only the Citizens Assembly may decide five things: Declare War/Make Peace/Alliance, to change civics, to begin construction on a Great Wonder/National Wonder/Project, a change in Taxes (the science/treasury/culture meter) greater that 10% more than once every 10 turns, and where to build new cities.
1. Exceptions to Change in taxes:
I. The President may change taxes up to 30% in the event of budget shortfall: our nation losing money instead of gaining or staying even. However the President must see that a vote is brought on the matter before the next Game Session.
II. The turn on which a technology is discovered the President may change taxes by as much as 50% but must see that a vote is brought on the matter before the next Game Session.
D. Decisions of the Citizens Assembly are made by a Floor Vote which is a poll carried by a simple majority.
1. A simple majority of a majority in this text unless otherwise specified means that the option which receives the most support wins.
2. Debates and Votes may be called and posted by any member of the Citizens Assembly.
3. The Executive Branch must enforce a vote of the Citizens Assembly even if they disagree with the decision.

II. Executive Branch
Who should the Great Merchant go to? (foregin or domestic?) Who should the great artist go to (since theres no culture advisor?) Who should be dutied with changing the tax sliders? Should they go to the President, or should the two sliders be split into two different duties?
A. President*
1. The President shall be elected by the people at the start of each term.
2. The President may appoint a deputy upon his will.
3. The President shall fulfill the following duties:
I. Organize the government and nation
What exactly are we vesting in our President
B. Domestic Advisor*
1. The Domestic Advisor shall be elected by the people at the start of each term
2. The Domestic Advisor may appoint a deputy upon his will.
3. The Domestic Advisor shall fulfill the following duties:
I. Controlling all worker units.
II. Controlling all cities without a specified (and voted upon) governor.
III. Control Great Engineers
C. Trade & Foreign Advisor
1. The Trade & Foreign Advisor shall be elected by the people at the start of each term.
2. The Trade & Foreign Advisor may appoint a deputy upon his will.
3. The Trade & Foreign Advisor shall fulfill the following duties:
I. Monitor all trade relations with foreign civilizations.
II. Accept, reject, propose and counter-offer agreements with foreign civilizations.
D. Military Advisor
1. The Military Advisor shall be elected by the people at the start of each term.
2. The Military Advisor may appoint a deputy upon his will.
3. The Military Advisor shall fulfill the following duties:
I. Control all land-based, naval based and air based military units.
II. Control all spy units.
E. Technology Advisor
1. The Technology Advisor shall be elected by the people at the start of each term.
2. The Technology Advisor may appoint a deputy upon his will.
3. The Technology Advisor shall fulfill the following duties:
I. Select and control research paths.
II. Control Great Scientist
F. Religion & Civic Advisor*
1. The Religion & Civic Advisor shall be elected by the people at the start of each term.
2. The Religion & Civic Advisor may appoint a deputy upon his will.
3. The Religion & Civic Advisor shall fulfill the following duties:
I. Regulate in-game government structure and civics.
II. Regulate state religion
III. Control all Great Prophets
IV. Control all Missionaries
G. Censor*
1. The Censor shall be elected by the people at the start of each term.
2. The Censor may appoint a deputy upon his will.
3. The Censor shall fulfill the following duties:
I. Conduct nominations at the end of each term.
II. Conduct elections at the end of each term.

H. Governors*
1. The Governors shall be elected by the people at the start of each term.
2. The Governors may appoint deputies upon their will.
3. Each governor shall have control of a city or a state (a grouping of cities) and will be burdened with the following duties:
I. Control the build queue of controlled cities.
II. Control workers assigned to the city by the Domestic Advisor
III. Control garrisons assigned to the city by the Military Advisor
IV. Manage Citizens in controlled cities.

III. Judicial Branch
A. Chief Justice*
Insert Here
B. Judge Advocate*
Insert Here
C. Public Defender*
Insert Here
I don't participate in Judiciary Discussions or follow them, so I didn't want to start writing stuff I knew next to nothing about.

IV. Designated Players
A. The Designated Player is the person who is tasked to perform the instructions of the officials in the game.
B. Nominations and elections for the Designated Player shall occur at the time as the other nominations and elections.
1. Elections for Designated player shall be a multiple choice poll with any and all nominees gathering over 50.00% being elected to the Designated Player Pool.
2. The Designated Players will play in the order of those who did not play in the last term in order of votes from highest to lowest followed by those who did play last term in order of votes from highest to lowest. Once the Designated Player pool is used up, the rotation starts again at the top of the list.
C. A Designated Player shall choose whether his Play Session will be online or offline.
D. If the Designated Player is unavailable to play at the designated time, the highest ranking member of the Triumvirate, or if no Triumvirate members are present, or those present decline to play the highest ranking Cabinet member, or if no Cabinet members are present, or those present decline to play a member of the Designated Player pool at the chat can choose to play the session in place of the Designated Player who is absent or the session can be canceled.
I. In this instance the absent Designated Player loses his slot until the next run through.
E. If the results of an Offline Session are not posted within 48 hours of the designated starting time that game session is declared void and canceled and that Designated Player is skipped and the next Designated Player takes over.
F. The Designated Player shall follow all instructions from elected and appointed officials regarding their respective areas.
1. If no instructions from a given office are posted for a game session the Designated Player assumes the powers of that office for the game session.
2. The Designated Player must refuse all illegal instructions. The Designated Player may request a Judicial Review to determine the validity of an instruction and delay play until the Judicial Review has been completed.


V. Standards of Conduct
A. Freedom of Information
1. All elected officials may create an official thread. This thread will be used to provide updates to the citizens about their office. The information in this thread should be updated frequently in order to accurately reflect the current game situation.
B. Polling Standards
1. The description and initial post for all official polls should be stated in a clear and neutral manner.
I. The initial post should contain a link to all relevant discussion threads. Each option should be explained if not immediately clear. The time frame for the poll, and how the results will be interpreted should also be in the initial post.
2. All official polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days to be binding, however it is recommended that binding polls be open from 3 to 4 days if possible.
3. Official polls should be marked Public unless directly concerning another Citizen.

VI. Term Limits
A. No Executive Official (with the exception of Governors or Designated Players) may hold an office for more than two consecutive terms.

VII. Impeachment
A. The Citizens may bring an Impeachment Vote against any Official (with the exception of Judiciary Members.)
1. An Impeachment Vote requires a 51/100 (51%) majority to pass.
2. A successful Impeachment Vote shall remove the specific official named in it from office.
B. Judiciary Members may not be impeached

VIII. Vacancies
A. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to the office holder resigning, judicial action, impeachment, if no citizen ran for election for that office or when a new office is created.
B. Official Vacancies (excluding Governors and Judiciary Members)
1. The President must offer the position to the Deputy, if there is one.
2. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
3. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.
C. Governor Vacancies
1. The Governors Council must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Council within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Council may appoint any citizen to the office.
2. If there is no Governors Council, the Domestic Advisor must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the Minister of Interior within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the Minister of Interior may appoint any citizen to the office.
D. Judicial Vacancies
1. The President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.
2. This appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll.
E. All vacancy appointments which are subject to a confirmation poll are provisional until the time for a confirmation poll has passed, or when a confirmation poll for that appointment concludes with a 'Yes' majority.
1. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

2. A Citizen who holds office may apply for a new office before the 72 hour waiting period provided they write in their application that they will resign from their current office. That citizen does not have to resign until the provisional period passes.
F. Being a member of the Designated Player Pool is not considered holding an office and thus is not counted against a Citizen in terms of being able to run for and hold multiple offices.

IX. Code of Standards
A. To create a Code of Standards a poll will need to be taken and with more yea votes being cast than nay votes. Different proposals may then be considered. A poll will be taken between the different proposals with the winning one being put up for ratification. The ratification poll will need at least 50.01% of votes cast not counting abstains to vote yea to ratify the Code of Standards.

X. Amending the Code of Laws
A. Amending the Code of Laws
1. The Code of Laws may be amended by a 60% majority of votes cast in a public poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days.
2. Minor changes to the Code of Laws, such as correcting typographical and clerical errors, reorganization and reformatting for better readability, and addition of text which does not impact legal definitions may be made at any time.
3. If any citizen objects to a minor change within the 48 hour period commencing when the minor change is proposed, the change shall be considered an amendment and must undergo ratification as such.
B. Steps to Amend the Code of Laws
1. A Citizen posts an idea about the amendment as a thread.
2. Amendment is debated in the thread.
3. After at least 48hours the proponent posts a proposed poll.
4. Once 24 hours have passed with no significant comments to the thread poll, the issue goes to the Judiciary for review.
5. If and after Judicial Review passes, the ratification poll is posted by the Judiciary.

A few things I noticed from a quick overview:

1. I don't know why the moderators should be able to veto any decision made in the demogame... We always like to add clauses to the constitution about moderator powers, but in reality its unnecessary. If we are breaking the forum rules, they will intervene, if we aren't they shouldn't
But your clause gives them complete control over the DG.

2. You changed all the judicial terms, which would cause some confusion... Why change these names? You changed judicial review to inquiry and you also changed all the justice titles. Also you talk about a citizen being defended in the constitution but nothing about a trial?

3. The constitution and code of laws should be separate documents not just two articles

4. The legislative article is too detailed... Those type of things should be initiatives as I posted in a couple spots....

First a general comment, this looks like a partially edited version of the current (effectively defunct) game's rules. Basing on an existing document and editing it can be good, so don't take this as a criticism, but being partially edited it will be pretty easy to find inconsistencies.

Black_hole already pointed out the problem with the "moderator section". That's a section of the existing law that we should either leave pretty much as is or leave it out entirely. You tried to simplify it, but changed the meaning in doing so to something that a lot of people will not like.

The citizen rights section seems to be missing some of the traditional items. Can't put my finger on which ones but the list is definitely shorter. Believe it or not, even something that simple has gotton us into trouble in the past, when the "right to be eligible to hold office" was interpreted by some as invalidating term limits. I might end up recommending we leave it off to avoid any unnecessary sillieness.

On decision making, recall (in the sense of removing an official from office) should not belong to the decision making hierarchy at all. In this respect, basing the rules on the DG I Constitution is a mistake. Recall should be in an elections and appointments section instead. The rest of the hierarchy as listed doesn't make sense, for example listing mandate above approval isn't right because they are both the same thing. I suggest the following, which should be edited to fit in with the style of these rules but being careful not to lose the meaning.

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.


The election section says how long nominations should be open but does not list the length of the election poll itself. Also this section is where we list the length of a term. I think we overlooked the term length in DG I, and technically at least one election could have been declared null and void if the judiciary of the time hadn't decided to fill the omission with the traditional one calendar month.

I'm getting tired so will stop for now. ;)

Well the constitution was just a reformat of the one I believe Dutchfire proposed, since no one really had any objection (all though Ginger_Ale's objection was duly noted.)

At the end I meant to put in that anything with an asterisk next to it, were just named mentioned in the polling and discussion threads, and they were just place holding names. (I'll be editing that into my first post.)

In regards to moderator power, I think our law gives them a little too much power, but I doubt any of the mods will abuse their power. You make it like they are unchecked, yet they are checked and balanced by the community itself. I doubt a mod (a pretty high position on CfC, for the elite few ;) ) would set out to ruin a game. Even though Chieftess was barely active this DG, when active, she played the part of a normal citizen. If you really feel they must be limited, I have no objection.

Also, I didn't copy and paste correctly (from Microsoft Word.) In my original document, I stated that the two Articles could be separate documents if the citizens deem necessary, but they were just separated into two separate posts for the purpose of this thread.

I'm going to limit the legislative section a bit, change the judiciary names to the ones we currently use, and cut and edit a few more things. All additions will be in blue and all removals will be stricken

Edit:
A discussion which predominantly favors one course of action over the alternatives.
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.

Well the constitution was just a reformat of the one I believe Dutchfire proposed, since no one really had any objection (all though Ginger_Ale's objection was duly noted.)

At the end I meant to put in that anything with an asterisk next to it, were just named mentioned in the polling and discussion threads, and they were just place holding names. (I'll be editing that into my first post.)

In regards to moderator power, I think our law gives them a little too much power, but I doubt any of the mods will abuse their power. You make it like they are unchecked, yet they are checked and balanced by the community itself. I doubt a mod (a pretty high position on CfC, for the elite few ;) ) would set out to ruin a game. Even though Chieftess was barely active this DG, when active, she played the part of a normal citizen. If you really feel they must be limited, I have no objection.

Also, I didn't copy and paste correctly (from Microsoft Word.) In my original document, I stated that the two Articles could be separate documents if the citizens deem necessary, but they were just separated into two separate posts for the purpose of this thread.

I'm going to limit the legislative section a bit, change the judiciary names to the ones we currently use, and cut and edit a few more things. All additions will be in blue and all removals will be stricken
I don't believe we are limiting the mods, I just don't believe the mods should have extra rights beyond normal citizens and their forum moderating...

According to your law, if I was a moderator I could strike down any law or poll I wanted. I could even choose the constitution we would use.
If you don't think that would ever happen, check the archives

This proposal is too long to even read. We should not be putting specific items into the constitution. As the highest level of our ruleset it needs to be very flexible and very difficult to change. The constitution is something we should not have to make major changes to from game to game and so it should be flexible enough to allow many, many different forms of governments.

The last constitution wasn't all that bad. We should be refining that document and moving on to the game instead of starting from scratch again.

This proposal is too long to even read. We should not be putting specific items into the constitution. As the highest level of our ruleset it needs to be very flexible and very difficult to change. The constitution is something we should not have to make major changes to from game to game and so it should be flexible enough to allow many, many different forms of governments.


The reason it seems too long is that it's both the constitution and CoL..


The last constitution wasn't all that bad. We should be refining that document and moving on to the game instead of starting from scratch again.

I'm trying to hold true to a promise to myself (and to the game) to step back and allow others to write the actual documents. Care to make those minor refinements and put it forward as a proposal?

I will consider coming back from sabbatical if you really want an updated DG1 Constitution and will acknowledge that I have no "power" interest in writing up the changes.

I'm trying to hold true to a promise to myself (and to the game) to step back and allow others to write the actual documents. Care to make those minor refinements and put it forward as a proposal?

That's a silly promise you made. Almost as silly as your idea that by not posting on a subject you remain impartial about it.

I will write up a proposal but don't be surprised if it turns out not to be minor. It would be much better if we worked on the draft as a group rather than individually.

This proposal is too long to even read.
Please take the time to atleast read the first post I made. The topic title will throw off a lot of people from the thread's intent.

THIS THREAD IS NOT AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL
It is merely a mock proposal to see what minor things, that we haven't polled because there are too many, that we agree and disagree on. Such as duties to certain officials.

Could you tone it down bit ice? Oh, and when you're ready to make an actual proposal let us know.

General comments:
-- too long
-- language is stilted and formal - use a more casual tone
-- too many lines, not enough paragraphs
-- lots of repetition, especially in leader sections. Abstraction in your friend.
-- this is based off of a ruleset that failed
-- still contains references to concepts that you stripped out

There's more, but as you said, this isn't an actual proposal, so I'll refrain from further actual comments until then.

-- Ravensfire

Also, as another point of reference, see the other ideas and concepts proposed for DG1. While these are generally COL proposals only, they may provide ideas.

[url=http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146769]
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3461322&postcount=33
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3471934&postcount=38
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3568853&postcount=61

Of course, there is also the full Tri ruleset, linked in the sticky post.

As always, I suggest that potential authors review the Judicial Log thread, and see what issues were raised in the previous DG. If you can answer those in your ruleset ahead of time, you'll help the entire ruleset.

-- Ravensfire

Here's my proposal, based on the last constitution. I think the formatting may have gotten lost in the pasting.

Preamble

We, the sovereign citizens of [nation name], united by a common interest in our Civilization, guided by our desire for equality and justice, strengthened by our mutual respect, and reminded of our universal rights and responsibilities, do establish and promulgate this Constitution for our beloved nation.

Article A - Forms of Law
1. Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
2. No rule, law or standard shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution or the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.
Article B - Citizens
1. 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. Membership in the user group specific to this democracy game is required in order for a citizen to vote.
2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
a. The Right to Assemble
b. The Right to Vote
c. The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
d. The Right to Free Speech
e. The Right to Free Movement
f. The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
g. The Right to Presumption of Innocence unless proven guilty
h. The Right of Representation
3. These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times.
Article C - Decision Making
1. Power of the People
1. All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
2. The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
§ By Initiative in the form of a completed forum poll initiated by any citizen.
§ By Mandate in the form of game play instructions posted in the forum by a duly elected official with legal authority in the area covered by said instructions.
§ By Constituency in the form of citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a forum discussion.
§ By Designated Player Action in the form of actions made (and logged) during game play.
3. In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
§ An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type, including an earlier initiative on the same subject.
§ Mandate supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier mandate on the same subject) except an initiative or another later initiative.
§ Constituency supercedes only designated player actions.
§ Designated Player Action does not supercede any other type of decision.
4. A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
§ Initiative must always be allowed
§ No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.
Article D - Elections
1. Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined in advance of the beginning of such term, as further defined by law.
2. All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
3. The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
a. Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.
Article E - Playing the Save
1. No person may play the save other than a Designated Player specifically tasked to do so, or an official who is required to attempt certain actions to get information about what is possible in the game.
a. If any action must be performed outside a scheduled play session, to obtain information about possible options, the game must then be immediately closed without saving, and without performing further actions.
2. Obtaining information which would not be visible to someone playing the game, at the current point in time reflected by the current saved game or a previous saved game, by any mechanism, is prohibited. As noted in Section 1.a of this Article, actions performed by an official, where performing the action is the only way to determine options, are permitted as long as the game is immediately closed following such investigation.
3. Inadvertent discovery of information shall not result in any penalty, provided no attempt is made to further disseminate the information or use it to advantage within the game.
4. Use of any exploits is prohibited. No person may manipulate the game in any way other than by normal play mechanisms, unless expressly permitted by law.
5. Lower forms of law are free to (and expected to) further define what actions are allowed and disallowed by this rule.
Article F - Judiciary
1. The Judicial Branch will consist of the Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate.
2. These three justices are tasked with upholding, clarifying and reviewing all changes to the Constitution and its supporting laws through Judicial Reviews, and upholding the rights of all citizens through Investigations.
3. The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair and timely manner.
a. Any poll by the judiciary for which the primary subject is an individual or impacts upon an individual must be private.
4. A lower form of law may specify judicial procedures and standards for the conduct of Judicial Reviews and Citizen Complaints. If the law does not define such procedures, then the responsibility for setting procedures is granted to the Judiciary.

Article G - Ratification and Amendments
1. The Constitution shall be initially ratified by a three-fourths majority of votes cast in a poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days. A three-fourths majority is one where at least three times as many votes are cast for an ratification as are cast against it.
2. The Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds majority of votes cast in a poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days. A two-thirds majority is one where at least twice as many votes are cast for an amendment as are cast against it.

I guess this thread failed it's purpose. This is not meant to be a place for ruleset proposals. Although fine by me if it turns into one.

I meant for it to be the discussion thread for things that there are just too many of too poll.

Such as polling the distribution of each type of great person. Or certain duties that fall into to two advisors, balance of power issues and what not.

@Donsig, sorry if I got a bit jumpy, but comments such as "too long to read," aren't productive. It's fine if you think it is too long or detailed to be a working ruleset, but the point of it wasn't for it to be a working ruleset. Also comments such as "oh and when your ready to make an actual proposal let us know" don't really help either. I try to take what was a good few hours to put together something to help us move along and address key issues, yet that is your response, on top of pretty much copy and pasting the DG1 constitution with a few changes.[/endrant]

When you throw a proposal out, you will get comments. It doesn't matter want you want, you will get them. It doesn't matter if you like them, you will get them. Heck, you might even get some positive comments on occasion.

The fact that you didn't like some of the comments is completely irrelevent - they are an indication of the views of the reader towards your proposal. I also thought it too long - deal with my comment as you wish, I certainly don't care.

And ice2k4 - you tossed out a rather negative attitude, don't complain when people respond in kind. Creating a ruleset is by far the most difficult thing I've done in the DG. You will get hammered, insulted, castigated and get frightfully little in return. And it doesn't get any better as the game goes on, as people interpret things in ways you never thought possible, and discard sections as "junk".

Crafting a ruleset means dumping your ego at the door, and recognizing that you have little control over the flow of the process. If you want to discuss certain aspects, create a thread for each topic.

Ranting certainly won't help.

EDIT: Realize that came off a bit rough - sorry. Rulesets are a pain, and it takes time, patience and a thick skin to create one. The usual suspects involved here have VERY strong opinions about certain things (and that includes me) and have no problem commenting on aspects they don't like. Things that they like are usually ignored, or mentioned as "no comment". If you continue - and I truly hope you do - be prepared for what's coming up, and remember that it's not personal. Some of us have seen just about everything bad that can happen in a DG, and have various ideas about avoiding it. It's a neat feeling to see the game start with a ruleset that you were the primary author for - I've been privlidged to have that several times. The experiences of the last process have rather burned me out, so I'm hoping that others (such as you) will step up. My last comment is to look at the last two paragraphs before this edit, and take what you will from them.

-- Ravensfire

I guess this thread failed it's purpose. This is not meant to be a place for ruleset proposals. Although fine by me if it turns into one.

I meant for it to be the discussion thread for things that there are just too many of too poll.

Such as polling the distribution of each type of great person. Or certain duties that fall into to two advisors, balance of power issues and what not.


Fair enough, you meant the thread for a different purpose than we thought. I've tried the very same thing in RL as you tried here, tossing out a draft of a specification to see what sticks and what doesn't. People generally are good at finding incorrect things this way, but usually not very good at finding things that are missing. Add the confusion that the reader often thinks the draft was intended to be real, even when told it is not, and the type of reaction you got is quite common.

I didn't expect Donsig to put his edited DG1 constitution in the same thread, but it's certainly within his rights to do it that way. :)

Ravensfire suggested looking at the things which got Judicial Revew traffic during the previous game, to try to fix those problems in advance. I think this is very good advice. That approach will find problems with rules, but may not find answers for in-game decision making, especially the type of decisions you seem to be targeting. To find out what questions we need to ask about gameplay decisions, look at the last game to see what aspects of the game we messed up. I'll start with a short list of critical items. We need to make sure we cover:

Watching the economic effects of adding cities.
Keeping our happieness and health levels up.
True city specialization, starting as early as there is a choice to be made.
Keeping a good assessment of foreign relations
Adapting a strategy to fit the situation, instead of trying to attain a desired strategy which the situation doesn't support.

We need to make sure we cover:

Watching the economic effects of adding cities.
Keeping our happieness and health levels up.
True city specialization, starting as early as there is a choice to be made.
Keeping a good assessment of foreign relations
Adapting a strategy to fit the situation, instead of trying to attain a desired strategy which the situation doesn't support.


Not one of these things should be in our constitution or even in our ruleset as a whole. Not one. These are things that can be added as we play through initiatives. These things are perfect to begin addressing as the game starts. That's when there is little [civ4] stuff to do and we can devote our energies to hammering out initiatives to cover this stuff and more.

If we try to come up with rules to address all these things we'll either take a very long time to get a workable ruleset or we'll end up starting the game with a half baked ruleset.

On the other hand, if we start with just a flexible constitution we can get going and we can address these sorts of issues. I also think it would be better to hammer out these sorts of things when we have the attention of the people playing th egame and not no when there are only a handful of us talking about the rules.

I'm only referring to defining the assignment of duties to offices, not how we should approach the actual decisions themselves.

Are you trying to suggest we start with no assignment of duties to officials? What would that leave us with, a President and a Judiciary, and nothing else to start the game? I guess it's one way to ensure the election for President is contested, given that all the other offices would probably have to be appointed. Effectively one person would completely control the whole first term. :eek:

Are you trying to suggest we start with no assignment of duties to officials? What would that leave us with, a President and a Judiciary, and nothing else to start the game? I guess it's one way to ensure the election for President is contested, given that all the other offices would probably have to be appointed. Effectively one person would completely control the whole first term. :eek:

Yes, DaveShack, that's exactly what I'm proposing. We start wirh one settler and a warrior, right. Why do we need more than one government official? :confused: We then create our government by initiative as the need arises. And please remember, we can discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials. :p

Yes, DaveShack, that's exactly what I'm proposing. We start wirh one settler and a warrior, right. Why do we need more than one government official? We then create our government by initiative as the need arises. And please remember, we can discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials.
This actually might be a better idea than a pre-defined ruleset. Although I would like a clause somewhere requiring for the citizens to meet and discuss about new official positions being created once a month, so the original President does not get away with loads of power. It actually makes a lot more sense, since we would be able to monitor the participation levels to coincide with the amount of positions. This way we don't write a ruleset with 10 positions and only 15 citizens. As long as we define a constitution, I'm in favor of this idea.

If we do it this way, we should have a special election to fill each new position created mid-term. A 2 day nomination and 2 day election poll should be sufficient. I don't want one person to appoint the entire government, even with a confirmation poll structure in place.

Another alternative would be to start with a list of positions but no details about what each position does other than its title. Have the people elected to the positions create their own job description on the fly. If/when conflicts develop where more than one official wants leadership of an area, have the President decide short-term who does it, and the citizens settle the final disposition via discussion and initiative.

Creating a new position might be as easy as a volunteer stepping up and doing the job, resolving conflicts with existing officials via the "President decides short-term, initiative long-term" method, and an initiative to make the office permanent.

Deleting offices would be as simple as the office goes vacant, nobody wants it, so the President divides up the responsibilities short-term and an Initiative deletes the offices and reassigns the duties to other offices. If the people think the new office should not be created or the old office should stay then the initiative doesn't pass.

And please remember, we can discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials. :p

It would be more correct to say we should be able to discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials. :p We both know it doesn't actually work that way -- in practice, areas with no official end up getting ignored.

While I don't personally have a problem with building the job assignments as we go, I would expect the idea to be met with significant resistance from the people who are not currently paying attention to what we're talking about. Playing devil's advocate a bit, some of the objections to this idea might be:


We have several high contributors who are only active when they hold a position, or are more active when holding a position. Starting too small risks not getting support from the folks we should be able to count on to add energy at the beginning of the game.
Many people are turned off by bickering. The inevitable turf war will not be pretty, and we risk scaring away the ones who don't like it.
How is starting with a constitutional framework but little or no details different from any of the other times we've started with incomplete rules or with lots of ambiguities?
Gee, that's an awful lot of power to give to one person (and perhaps his/her cronies). Sure this isn't a game of Despotism, or Oligarchy?


I think my suggestion in post #23 addresses some of these potential concerns, but maybe not all of them.

Another alternative would be to start with a list of positions but no details about what each position does other than its title. Have the people elected to the positions create their own job description on the fly. If/when conflicts develop where more than one official wants leadership of an area, have the President decide short-term who does it, and the citizens settle the final disposition via discussion and initiative.
Not sure that I like this idea as much, only because creating a few undescribed positions at the beginning of the game my throw us off with participation vs. office control.

We have several high contributors who are only active when they hold a position, or are more active when holding a position. Starting too small risks not getting support from the folks we should be able to count on to add energy at the beginning of the game.
This is a possible scenario, but the elections for the President (or beginning official) would create huge hype. Also after the first city is settled, a governor position may pop up, again which might be a big election and as soon as create a worker or settler there comes one or two more positions. Positions would be created rather quickly. Also with one player governing the first few turns the first few play sessions would go by rather quickly (it's possible the first 30 turns could be played in one session) and you might see as many as five new positions open by the second week.

Many people are turned off by bickering. The inevitable turf war will not be pretty, and we risk scaring away the ones who don't like it.
Well so can every other close debate. Democracy means that there are going to be a few turf wars. If you pay attention to the last DG, you would find a few heated debates. Once the distribution of a power is polled via initiative, the decision should stick. We could implement a limit, such as once a non-in-game initiative is made, it's decision can not be reversed or affected by another initiative until two weeks pass. This way people aren't constantly trying to get a decision overturned, yet they still have the power to do so.

Gee, that's an awful lot of power to give to one person (and perhaps his/her cronies). Sure this isn't a game of Despotism, or Oligarchy?
So we don't have to give him complete power. With atleast a constitution in place, we can limit his power. It shouldn't be hard to write a rule that limits the President's power, such as rules that state:


The Citizen's Assembly has the right to create a office and distribute powers as any time via a initiative poll.

The Citizen's Assembly has the right to impeach the President via recall poll with 51% of the non-abstain votes being yea.

Upon creation of a new position a two day nomination period followed by a two day election period will be held (and can be mid-term.) (Daveshack's idea.)

This way if the citizen's feel that the President is making too many unpolled decisions, they can simply impeach.

Not sure that I like this idea as much, only because creating a few undescribed positions at the beginning of the game my throw us off with participation vs. office control.


This is a possible scenario, but the elections for the President (or beginning official) would create huge hype. Also after the first city is settled, a governor position may pop up, again which might be a big election and as soon as create a worker or settler there comes one or two more positions. Positions would be created rather quickly. Also with one player governing the first few turns the first few play sessions would go by rather quickly (it's possible the first 30 turns could be played in one session) and you might see as many as five new positions open by the second week.


Well so can every other close debate. Democracy means that there are going to be a few turf wars. If you pay attention to the last DG, you would find a few heated debates. Once the distribution of a power is polled via initiative, the decision should stick. We could implement a limit, such as once a non-in-game initiative is made, it's decision can not be reversed or affected by another initiative until two weeks pass. This way people aren't constantly trying to get a decision overturned, yet they still have the power to do so.


So we don't have to give him complete power. With atleast a constitution in place, we can limit his power. It shouldn't be hard to write a rule that limits the President's power, such as rules that state:


The Citizen's Assembly has the right to create a office and distribute powers as any time via a initiative poll.

The Citizen's Assembly has the right to impeach the President via recall poll with 51% of the non-abstain votes being yea.

Upon creation of a new position a two day nomination period followed by a two day election period will be held (and can be mid-term.) (Daveshack's idea.)

This way if the citizen's feel that the President is making too many unpolled decisions, they can simply impeach.
In my opinion those blue articles aren't needed... Currently one of the draft constitutions says: "Initiatives will have the binding force of law", so an initiative can basically do anything except amend the constitution
I also wouldn't put the stuff about nomination periods, there may be some occasions we won't have enough time for a 4 day period, and we could simply specify the time period in the initiative... Lets not put extra laws in our constitution...

In my opinion those blue articles aren't needed... Currently one of the draft constitutions says: "Initiatives will have the binding force of law", so an initiative can basically do anything except amend the constitution
I also wouldn't put the stuff about nomination periods, there may be some occasions we won't have enough time for a 4 day period, and we could simply specify the time period in the initiative... Lets not put extra laws in our constitution...
I just meant laws like that should be in place. I wasn't basing it on any current constitution or proposal, but I agree with what your saying.

Well done Ice, I appreciate any actual work done on this subject as it is the most important and most difficult of all.

Some small things:

A. All elections will be at the same time.
You state elsewhere that everyone should be elected at the beginning of term.

Floor votes:
to change civics
Even simple ones like to hereditary rule when you're spiritual (happened this game without poll).
a change in Taxes (the science/treasury/culture meter) greater that 10% more than once every 10 turns
Skrew taxes, a change in Taxes isn't that important, and should be up to the domestic/science minister.

D. If the Designated Player is unavailable to play at the designated time, the highest ranking member of the Triumvirate, or if no Triumvirate members are present, or those present decline to play the highest ranking Cabinet member, or if no Cabinet members are present, or those present decline to play a member of the Designated Player pool at the chat can choose to play the session in place of the Designated Player who is absent or the session can be canceled.
Triumvirate, Cabinet??? No thanks :p

2. The Designated Player must refuse all illegal instructions. The Designated Player may request a Judicial Review to determine the validity of an instruction and delay play until the Judicial Review has been completed.

May a DP do the same as the illegal instruction, if he wants to?