Here's my proposal, based on the last constitution. I think the formatting may have gotten lost in the pasting. I've there are no major objections I'd like to poll this for ratification soon.

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 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 ratification as are cast against it.
2. The Constitution may be amended by a three-fifths majority of votes cast in a poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days. A three-fifths majority is one where at least one and a half as many votes are cast for an amendment as are cast against it.

Looks like a good place to start, donsig. Too bad I won't be able to vote to ratify it.

Looks like a good place to start, donsig. Too bad I won't be able to vote to ratify it.

Since this is only a start the poll prolly won't go up till they get around to adding you to the user group. In the mean time what needs to change? I'm wondering if we should keep the constituency clauses. It seems our decison making process should be:
Initiative (a complete valid forum poll)
Mandate (authorized instruction by appropriate official)
Designated Player Action


As currently proposed constituency falls in between Mandate and DP Action. I don't think it's fair to expect our DPs to be held responsible for things posted in the forums that are not in the game play instruction thread. The DP needs all instructions in one place. I also think our officials should not be expected to glean every detail from discussion posts in order to get them into the instruction thread. I think officials must be responsible to be aware of any initiatives. I hope they would be cognizant of citizen discussions as well, but should only be bound by actual initiatives. If an official chooses to ignore citizen discusssions then he risks losing reelection. The proposed system also allows for anyone to post polls so citizens would always have recourse to polling things themselves if an official is lax or just plain obstinate.

I'm wondering if we should keep the constituency clauses. I don't think it's fair to expect our DPs to be held responsible for things posted in the forums that are not in the game play instruction thread.
Hmmm. I liked the constituency part. I didn't like it when it was first brought about for approval in the begining Demogames, as it was a matter of interpretation what was decided (or could be that), and not as definate as a poll. But over the years, I've loosened up a bit on that issue. In a Demogame chat, there are usually people around to let the DP know when a hot issue has come to fruition or basically been decided on in the forums. Having off-line sessions would end this benifit, though. Tough call.

If there is a discussion about an important topic, and 20 people are in favor of one course of action where only a few (1-2) disagree, the leader should not be able to ignore the 20 people in favor of doing his/her own thing, or in favor of the 1-2. There is no doubt that there is clear input in this case.

When a discussion is running 6-5 in favor of an action, the official should be able to make the decision. There is no clear input in this case.

It is a judgement call. I don't want to get rid of all the judgement calls in the game, far from it. What I want is for the stronger decision to overrule the weaker.

Instead of thinking of constituency in terms of what the DP sees, think in terms of what an official must do. The official must follow a discussion's conclusion if it is clear. If the official does not post instructions in a case where a discussion is all we've had, the DP should not be expected to see it nor be required to follow it even if it is a clear citizen decision, if finding it takes anything more than trivial effort.

If the citizens pushing the majority view really wanted their views to be binding, they should have forced a poll.

D.1 determined in advance prior to the start of the election cycle for the term

The ratification levels are far too high. This is a majority rule game. I understand and agree with limitations designed to prevent a coup by a very small number of citizens (under 5), but having a 4 day poll virtually guarantees that enough of the citizens will vote that such a thing cannot happen.

If there is a discussion about an important topic, and 20 people are in favor of one course of action where only a few (1-2) disagree, the leader should not be able to ignore the 20 people in favor of doing his/her own thing, or in favor of the 1-2. There is no doubt that there is clear input in this case.

I agree and my proposal does not force (via a rule) officials to do anything in the scenario you suggest. My proposal relies on the election process. If an official issues an instruction siding with the small minority then I would expect the official to be out of a job after the next election. Note that even it the topic you describe were polled the official can still post an instruction counter to the poll (or post none at all). Sure there would be legal recourse then but the damage may well be done. My proposed constitution allows us to adopt my other proposal wherein any citizen can post a binding poll and any citizen can post a binding instruction based on a binding poll. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

When a discussion is running 6-5 in favor of an action, the official should be able to make the decision. There is no clear input in this case.

It is a judgement call. I don't want to get rid of all the judgement calls in the game, far from it. What I want is for the stronger decision to overrule the weaker.

Unfortunately it is exactly those situations where we are split that can cause the most controversy. I based my decision to start the Great Aztec War on what we are now calling constituency and ended up taking a heck of a lot of flak for it. It is difficult to count up who is in favor of what in a discussion thread. We should not subject anyone to that process and should rely only on forum polls for binding group decisions.

Instead of thinking of constituency in terms of what the DP sees, think in terms of what an official must do. The official must follow a discussion's conclusion if it is clear. If the official does not post instructions in a case where a discussion is all we've had, the DP should not be expected to see it nor be required to follow it even if it is a clear citizen decision, if finding it takes anything more than trivial effort.

I think officials should certainly be guided by citizen discussions. One who wants to be reelected certainly should do this. It is clear officials want to be able to make some decisions. In order to do this, allow citizens to still have a check on officials and avoid dissention we have to clearly define when an official can make a judgement call. My proposal is simplest. Polls are binding and can only be over-ridden by later polls. Polls can be posted by anyone. Instructions based on completed polls can be posted by anyone. Anything not polled is under the jurisdiction of the official. If the official goes against the wishes of the people or makes bad decisions then he will not be reelected.

DaveShack, you've been arguing elswhere that we must give officials respect. Here you seem to be arguing that we need to make rules to force them to do the right thing. This seems inconsistent to me.

If the citizens pushing the majority view really wanted their views to be binding, they should have forced a poll.

Under my proposal there is no forcing required. All the citizen has to do is post a poll. :)

D.1 determined in advance prior to the start of the election cycle for the term

In advance prior to is redundant. How about:

D.1. Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined prior to the start of the election cycle for the term, as further defined by law.

The ratification levels are far too high. This is a majority rule game. I understand and agree with limitations designed to prevent a coup by a very small number of citizens (under 5), but having a 4 day poll virtually guarantees that enough of the citizens will vote that such a thing cannot happen.

The ratification levels are for the constitution only. I'm aiming at a document we can use in all future demogames without rewriting it Once written it should not be tampered with easily. It is also vague enough and flexible enough that many different lower levels of law could exist under it. There are no guarantees DaveShack. How many people would have voted in a four day poll if I had posted one three days ago? We went two days without anyone posting here! I would never accept a simple majority for ratification unless it was tied to a census that required a minimum number of votes. I don't see the ratification levels as a problem.

I agree and my proposal does not force (via a rule) officials to do anything in the scenario you suggest.

But if the discussion is 20-2, then I don't want to wait till the end of the month to get rid of that official. If we don't have some rule that guarantees a clear decision in a discussion must be followed, then we might as well just have citizens poll everything. Sure, we can exercize restraint as citizens and trust officials to do the right thing, but what if they don't? At most one such incident would be allowed to happen, then I'd personally poll everything just to be sure it can never happen again.


Unfortunately it is exactly those situations where we are split that can cause the most controversy. I based my decision to start the Great Aztec War on what we are now calling constituency and ended up taking a heck of a lot of flak for it.

Not that it matters now, but...
As President it wasn't in your power to decide to go to war, it was the FA's decision. How to prosecute that war was the MA's decision. You used the expediency of being in the middle of a play session to take away the power of both officials. If you really believed that the forum should be paramount, you would have stopped immediately after the Aztecs declared on us. If you really believed the forum decision was that we wanted to force the Aztecs to declare, you could have postponed the play session and demanded proper instructions.


D.1. Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined prior to the start of the election cycle for the term, as further defined by law.

OK.

I don't see the ratification levels as a problem.
You probably haven't tried to get an amendment passed where you have a majority but not a supermajority.

But if the discussion is 20-2, then I don't want to wait till the end of the month to get rid of that official. If we don't have some rule that guarantees a clear decision in a discussion must be followed, then we might as well just have citizens poll everything. Sure, we can exercize restraint as citizens and trust officials to do the right thing, but what if they don't? At most one such incident would be allowed to happen, then I'd personally poll everything just to be sure it can never happen again.

The more rules you make the more loop holes you make. And you're talking about removing an official before his term is up and that would require a PI or CC or whatever we choose to call that sort of thing this time. Have we ever had anyone removed from office through a PI or CC? Have we ever had an official go against a game play decision made via discussion that was 20-2? Do we really need to include this as a rule DaveShack?

Not that it matters now, but...
As President it wasn't in your power to decide to go to war, it was the FA's decision.

No, it was the citizens who had power to decide to go to war. They did so in the discussion threads, using what was called constituency in the last constitution. As DP it was within my power to answer Monty's demands since there were no posted instructions regarding such a demand even though we were trying to block his settler. I answered the demands according to what citizens had posted regarding what was our land.

How to prosecute that war was the MA's decision.

Again, there were no instructions posted and again it was up to the citizens to decide how to prosecute the war.

You used the expediency of being in the middle of a play session to take away the power of both officials.

They had no power in the chat.

If you really believed that the forum should be paramount, you would have stopped immediately after the Aztecs declared on us. If you really believed the forum decision was that we wanted to force the Aztecs to declare, you could have postponed the play session and demanded proper instructions.

And you know I probably would have done that if those at the chat hadn't raised such a fuss over my decision. It was an ugly episode all around. We can avoid more ugly episodes if we keep the rules to a minimum and focus on working together to make decisions in a fair manner.


You probably haven't tried to get an amendment passed where you have a majority but not a supermajority.

No I haven't. But if we use a supermajority to ratify a good constitution in the first place then we shouldn't need many amendments and those we do should have strong support. Lower forms of rules can be easier to change.

Do you have specific changes to recommend to my proposal? If not I want to get a poll up.

I agree and my proposal does not force (via a rule) officials to do anything in the scenario you suggest. My proposal relies on the election process. If an official issues an instruction siding with the small minority then I would expect the official to be out of a job after the next election. Note that even it the topic you describe were polled the official can still post an instruction counter to the poll (or post none at all). Sure there would be legal recourse then but the damage may well be done. My proposed constitution allows us to adopt my other proposal wherein any citizen can post a binding poll and any citizen can post a binding instruction based on a binding poll. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Unfortunately it is exactly those situations where we are split that can cause the most controversy. I based my decision to start the Great Aztec War on what we are now calling constituency and ended up taking a heck of a lot of flak for it. It is difficult to count up who is in favor of what in a discussion thread. We should not subject anyone to that process and should rely only on forum polls for binding group decisions.



I think officials should certainly be guided by citizen discussions. One who wants to be reelected certainly should do this. It is clear officials want to be able to make some decisions. In order to do this, allow citizens to still have a check on officials and avoid dissention we have to clearly define when an official can make a judgement call. My proposal is simplest. Polls are binding and can only be over-ridden by later polls. Polls can be posted by anyone. Instructions based on completed polls can be posted by anyone. Anything not polled is under the jurisdiction of the official. If the official goes against the wishes of the people or makes bad decisions then he will not be reelected.

DaveShack, you've been arguing elswhere that we must give officials respect. Here you seem to be arguing that we need to make rules to force them to do the right thing. This seems inconsistent to me.



I find myself agreeing with donsig here. Part of the Demogame is like a government simulation. We go through the process of electing leaders to administer certain aspects of the game within the scope defined by the constitution and any approved citizen initiatives. And of course we expect our elected officials to act on behalf of the citizen's will. However, this game needs a balance between the leader having independent authority to act and merely being a record keeper of polls and discussions. I readily admit that it would be possible that a leader ignore a clearly supported action as discussed in a forum, but that freedom allows those seeking leadership roles to derive the enjoyment from a government simulation. And if the leader betrays the citizens, it is up to the citizens to remove the leader from office or to "throw the bum out" at the next election. This risk is the price we pay for having a government simulation. The risk realized is that the game does not progress perfectly to the wishes of the participants. Well, such is life - if it were perfect it would be boring.

Do you have specific changes to recommend to my proposal? If not I want to get a poll up.

Yes, make it 2/3 for ratification and 3/5 for amendment. (That's 66.7% and 60% respectively)

What process were you thinking of following? I don't think it serves any purpose to have the half dozen people here now ratify it, that has to be done by all. I have a plan but would like to hear input from others. :)

Yes, make it 2/3 for ratification and 3/5 for amendment. (That's 66.7% and 60% respectively)

I can live with that. Will edit in the changes.

What process were you thinking of following? I don't think it serves any purpose to have the half dozen people here now ratify it, that has to be done by all. I have a plan but would like to hear input from others. :)

Why don't you just come out and make your suggestion? Ideally, we'd set a start time for the [civ4] game and work backwards from there to schedule things. Trouble is until the game actually starts we won't get everyone's attention to vote on ratification. If we are going to use the build as we go system then I suggest we have only DPs the first term. We could have DP elections in January and start the first term on Feb. 1. Ratify a constitution in the first week or two of Feb while using discusssions and initiatives to make any needed decisions. As soon as it's ratified we can decide what offices we want starting in term two so we can have nominations and elections according to the old schedule which most of you want to adhere to.

Two days with no specifc changes proposed. I'd say it's time to poll this for ratification.

Proposed process:

Open new forum. Request to be submitted tonight.
Forum announcement. Hopefully my writing skills will be enough.
Start ratification proceedings in the new forum. Leave it open for something like 10-14 days and discuss game starting parameters in parallel.

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.

What exactly does this mean?

I'm reminded of a case where someone in Civ III put our civ into Anarchy to see how many turns it would be...

In my mind this was an illegal way of viewing the save since an irreversible action was done.

Also general formatting of the Constitution could be improved to make it easier to read, one of the reasons I didn't read it until now.

Other then that, looks like a good foundation.

What exactly does this mean?

I'm reminded of a case where someone in Civ III put our civ into Anarchy to see how many turns it would be...

In my mind this was an illegal way of viewing the save since an irreversible action was done.

Also general formatting of the Constitution could be improved to make it easier to read, one of the reasons I didn't read it until now.

Other then that, looks like a good foundation.

Under this Constitution, that action would be allowed, if there is no way to determine how long the anarchy would last. You do know in Civ4, so that exact action wouldn't fall under the concept of it being the only way to find out.

The original reason for this exception to tradition is that you have absolutely no clue if an AI will accept a tech or other deal until you try to make the deal. The FA saying "they'll be insulted" or 'they'll agree to that" doesn't exist in Civ4. Makes trading a royal PITA.

hmm... true... I can definately make an exception for that

Sorry about the formatting. Didn't come through when I copied and pasted. That would be fixed for the actual ratification poll.

As for waiting for the new forum it makes sense if it will be open soon. We really need to have a constitution in place a week or two before se want to start since we do need to pass some sort of procedural initiatives before the actual start if we want to avoid a polling free for all. Are we looking at starting on February 1 or are we reconsidering turn based terms and continuous play so we don't have to sync elections with the calender?

Even without defined offices we still want to elect designated players, don't we? And the judciary must be elected as well.

Makes trading a royal PITA.
I've never had a royal PITA, how does it taste?

Are we looking at starting on February 1 or are we reconsidering turn based terms and continuous play so we don't have to sync elections with the calender?

I think we already agreed on calender based terms.

I think we already agreed on calender based terms.

You are correct that there was a poll with this result. The nice thing about this Constitution proposal is that it does not bind us to any specific kind of term, it just requires the length of the term to be specified before elections. The citizens can confirm the calendar term decision by passing an initiative setting the term's length, or by accepting the term as set by the 1st election official.

We had a first term start other than the first of the month before, and it worked out fine. It would be foolish to start on the 25th, but nothing keeping us from starting the 5th if we're not ready on the 1st.

You are correct that there was a poll with this result. The nice thing about this Constitution proposal is that it does not bind us to any specific kind of term, it just requires the length of the term to be specified before elections. The citizens can confirm the calendar term decision by passing an initiative setting the term's length, or by accepting the term as set by the 1st election official.

We had a first term start other than the first of the month before, and it worked out fine. It would be foolish to start on the 25th, but nothing keeping us from starting the 5th if we're not ready on the 1st.
I agree, but unless I'm misreading donsig's statement (which it's possible I am), he's someone suggesting we have to start on the 1st if we have calender based terms. Just assuming it by the way he worded it.

Here's my proposal, based on the last constitution. I think the formatting may have gotten lost in the pasting. I've there are no major objections I'd like to poll this for ratification soon.


Here it is with some formatting.

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
Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
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
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.
All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
The Right to Assemble
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
The Right to Free Speech
The Right to Free Movement
The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
The Right to Presumption of Innocence unless proven guilty
The Right of Representation
These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times. Article C - Decision Making

All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
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.
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.
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
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.
All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lower forms of law are free to (and expected to) further define what actions are allowed and disallowed by this rule. Article F - Judiciary
The Judicial Branch will consist of the Chief Justice, Public Defender, and Judge Advocate.
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.
The Judiciary will carry out all its tasks in a fair and timely manner.
Any poll by the judiciary for which the primary subject is an individual or impacts upon an individual must be private.
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
The Constitution shall be initially ratified 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 ratification as are cast against it.
The Constitution may be amended by a three-fifths majority of votes cast in a poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days. A three-fifths majority is one where at least one and a half as many votes are cast for an amendment as are cast against it.

Looks like a good place to start, donsig. Too bad I won't be able to vote to ratify it.

You can now! :D

(I thought Rik was checking on it half the time. :scan:)

Except now we're in the new forum and that was for the old one.

Everyone needs to re-register -- time to try out that shiny new "announce" button. :)

Donsig, very good Constitution. Some thoughts that are somewhat off-the-cuff (in other words, I reserve the right to change my mind; please persuade me to do so):

Article B-3 is redundant (this concept is covered in the last sentence of Article A-2)

All of Article C is a little confused. Specifically, it hurts my lips to read C-2 & C-3. Could any of this be in a “lower form of law” AKA Code of Laws? Alternatively, why don’t we just make every citizen a member of the Senate and make all elected officials report to the Senate? This would clarify the point that the “Will of the People” is Supreme and might be a more workable solution all around.

Or maybe not. Anyway, I think we should be a Direct Democracy (which doesn’t preclude elected offices) and this might solve this problem. Or again, maybe not.

E-4 is unclear. What’s an “exploit?” Is cottage spam an exploit? I’d remove this clause (and I think E-5 is redundant).

Article F – I’d remove this entirely. Part of the Build as you Go exercise is, I thought, to allow events to motivate the creation of law. I know your experience in previous DemoGames has alerted you to some of the legal pitfalls that face us if we proceed fecklessly without a proper, detailed Constitution; but I suspect an awful lot of people who will play this game haven’t yet faced first-hand the horrors of an imprecise and incomplete Judiciary. Don’t spoil our fun. Let us screw up and discover what sort of Judiciary we need.

On E.4, here is the exploit list from GOTM (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152399). Seems like a good starting point to me. :)

Article F – I’d remove this entirely. Part of the Build as you Go exercise is, I thought, to allow events to motivate the creation of law. I know your experience in previous DemoGames has alerted you to some of the legal pitfalls that face us if we proceed fecklessly without a proper, detailed Constitution; but I suspect an awful lot of people who will play this game haven’t yet faced first-hand the horrors of an imprecise and incomplete Judiciary. Don’t spoil our fun. Let us screw up and discover what sort of Judiciary we need.

I'll second that. A clean slate, especially for our most controversial branch of government, would be an excellent way to go.

The purpose of the build as you go exercise was to allow events to motivate the creation of Offices or Official positions, not our laws. It would be the laws that guide us in the creation of these new positions.

Oct, I believe removing the Judicial Branch from the Constitution would do more than give us a clean slate, whatever that means, it would remove an essential part of the game. We need the Judiciary for checks and balances. (just call it the Judicial bank ;) )

Just consider what the alternative might be if we didn't have a Judiciary and there were a lot of conflicts. :eek:

Then again it could be a good thing, there are a few more shiny buttons on the forum that I haven't had a chance to press yet. :mischief:

The purpose of the build as you go exercise was to allow events to motivate the creation of Offices or Official positions, not our laws. It would be the laws that guide us in the creation of these new positions.

Oct, I believe removing the Judicial Branch from the Constitution would do more than give us a clean slate, whatever that means, it would remove an essential part of the game. We need the Judiciary for checks and balances. (just call it the Judicial bank )
Also as crazy as it may seem, some people actually enjoy the judicial part of the demogame.

Also, I see the general consensus is to use the build as you go rules, but we haven't officially polled it or even used a mock poll just to be sure.

Oct, I believe removing the Judicial Branch from the Constitution would do more than give us a clean slate, whatever that means, it would remove an essential part of the game. We need the Judiciary for checks and balances. (just call it the Judicial bank ;) )

It wouldn't remove it, it would just put it in the easily changable "Code of Laws", and they would be created after the game starts, just like the other officials in the "build as you go exercise"

It wouldn't remove it, it would just put it in the easily changable "Code of Laws", and they would be created after the game starts, just like the other officials in the "build as you go exercise"
You may be right dutchfire. But in that case we would probably have to remove Paragraph E.1 also. I mean the DP and other officials would of course be included in the easily changable "Code of Laws".
:hammer:

The goal of the build-as-you-go system, at least as I understand it, is to encourage innovation. Why not subject the judiciary to this process? The current setup has been in place forever (that one time where we moved to the three-justice system w/o JA or PD excepted)! We should let ourselves (and our new citizens) think outside the judicial box, so that we can find a better solution.

At the very least, we should drop Article F.1, so the structure of the court can be adjusted easily.

The purpose of the build as you go exercise was to allow events to motivate the creation of Offices or Official positions, not our laws. It would be the laws that guide us in the creation of these new positions.

Actually, isn’t the build as you go system both to facilitate the creation of offices and the writing of many of our laws? The Constitution establishes the basic principles that will guide us as we do both of these, but it isn’t meant to be the complete and only set of laws (see section A-2).

I am not at all advocating that we do away with the Judiciary. Rather, I agree with dutchfire that the definitions and duties of all offices should appear in the same place – the Code of Laws.

Alternatively, because we know we’re going to end up creating the offices of President, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Minister of Defense, and Minster of Justice (or Chief Justice), we could write these offices into the Constitution but not their descriptions. During the first term we’d expect those officials to take the lead in developing the scope and duties of their respective offices (of course with the advice and consent of the citizens). Both officials and citizens would work to identify and define additional offices that might be needed. For example, the President might push for a Designated Player pool; the Chief Justice for additional justices; the Minister of Domestic Affairs might request governors; and so on.

In fact candidates for the first term might campaign in part on what sort of vision they have for their office. For example, ravensfire IN THIS POST (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4862906&postcount=18) puts forth a pretty interesting case for the sort of judiciary he’d like to see. I’d nominate him for Chief Justice to hear more about this; and I’d like to see him run against a proponent of the more traditional judiciary we’ve had in the DG so we could get a good, detailed discussion of the pros and cons of each system.

I am not at all advocating that we do away with the Judiciary. Rather, I agree with dutchfire that the definitions and duties of all offices should appear in the same place – the Code of Laws.

I have nothing against removing the judiciary from the constitution though I would advise against it. Someone will have to try to resolve conflicts between polls, officials, citizens, etc. I think it's much better to have a body anchored in the constitution (and thus on a more solid foundation) than whatever is created using the build as we go approach. I would also caution everyone that build as we go rules does not necessarily mean we'll have a Code of Laws. (I certainly hope we can avoid such a monstrosity.) We will most likely wind up with a series of initiatives, the bookkeeping of which will be interesting to see.

Would it make sense to poll the contested articles separately, and the uncontested ones as a unit? That might be as few as 2 polls, one for the Judiciary and one for the rest. If we do it this way and there are no significant objections, we can get started on ratifications. :)

Actually, isn’t the build as you go system both to facilitate the creation of offices and the writing of many of our laws? The Constitution establishes the basic principles that will guide us as we do both of these, but it isn’t meant to be the complete and only set of laws (see section A-2).
No, actually Bertie, if you read the first post in the "Build As You Go" thread, it states that the purpose of the concept is to create needed and timely Offices. You made the second post in that thread, so I'm sure you read the first one. You did bring up a prior post made by you stating that although you probably wouldn't participate in this game, you did want to suggest how we should handle our Constitution.

I am not at all advocating that we do away with the Judiciary. Rather, I agree with dutchfire that the definitions and duties of all offices should appear in the same place – the Code of Laws.

Alternatively, because we know we’re going to end up creating the offices of President, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Minister of Defense, and Minster of Justice (or Chief Justice), we could write these offices into the Constitution but not their descriptions. During the first term we’d expect those officials to take the lead in developing the scope and duties of their respective offices (of course with the advice and consent of the citizens). Both officials and citizens would work to identify and define additional offices that might be needed. For example, the President might push for a Designated Player pool; the Chief Justice for additional justices; the Minister of Domestic Affairs might request governors; and so on.
Well, this is a nice idea, but... You want to state in the Constitution how the game is played and progresses. Unfortuntely, you'll have a hard time doing this without some sort of job description for the President or DP or both. You would have to put something in stating the process an individual (Official) would take to advance the game. This would be called, for lack of a better term, a job definition or description. So there goes listing Officials with no description.

In fact candidates for the first term might campaign in part on what sort of vision they have for their office. For example, ravensfire IN THIS POST (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4862906&postcount=18) puts forth a pretty interesting case for the sort of judiciary he’d like to see. I’d nominate him for Chief Justice to hear more about this; and I’d like to see him run against a proponent of the more traditional judiciary we’ve had in the DG so we could get a good, detailed discussion of the pros and cons of each system.
Yes that was a good post by Ravensfire, and I have voted for RF many times. But his post stated everything that a three person Judiciary does already. In fact, he states that the CJ would go to other individuals for advice and counsel (uh, gee. Like many 2 other Justices?) There is nothing new in that post. Except for the fact that he wants to corral the power divided among three persons and gift it to one individual.

Would it make sense to poll the contested articles separately, and the uncontested ones as a unit? That might be as few as 2 polls, one for the Judiciary and one for the rest. If we do it this way and there are no significant objections, we can get started on ratifications. :)

I don't think we should do that. Build as you go is fine for the rest of things but not for the constitution. It is designed as a unit and we should not try adopting it piecemeal.

I don't think there is much that's contested anyway. The redundancies can stay since they serve to strengthen what is said in the document. The judiciary seems to be the only questionable part. If someone were to make a proposal very similar to mine without a judiciary then I would vote for it. My proposal remain my proposal - with a constitutionally based judiciary. Rather than muck around why don't we just poll my proposal for ratification? It requires a two-thirds majority for ratification. (which I'd be happy to change back to my original proposal of three-fourths). Those who don't want a judiciary can simply vote no and we can then try another proposal.

We could just take the judiciary article out, and put it in the first draft of a code of laws, and have the mock polls simultaniously.

If someone were to make a proposal very similar to mine without a judiciary then I would vote for it.

That's a very good attitude, thanks. :thumbsup:

My proposal remain my proposal - with a constitutionally based judiciary. Rather than muck around why don't we just poll my proposal for ratification? It requires a two-thirds majority for ratification. (which I'd be happy to change back to my original proposal of three-fourths). Those who don't want a judiciary can simply vote no and we can then try another proposal.

I'd say your proposal so you get the honor of polling it. How long do you plan to make it? IMO more than a week would probably be a mistake, but it's your poll. I would like to have an announcement so that all potential citizens can arrive in time to vote.

We could just take the judiciary article out, and put it in the first draft of a code of laws, and have the mock polls simultaniously.

Except we don't have a CoL draft right now, do we?

I have nothing against removing the judiciary from the constitution though I would advise against it. Someone will have to try to resolve conflicts between polls, officials, citizens, etc. I think it's much better to have a body anchored in the constitution (and thus on a more solid foundation) than whatever is created using the build as we go approach.
I guess I hope that we citizens will be able to resolve any conflicts that arise early in the game before we’ve formed new offices (including the Judiciary). One of the reasons why I like ravensfire’s idea for a single-person judiciary is that his plan would force some of the legal decisions back to the citizens. This is where some of them belong, IMO. (However, the 3-person judiciary is tried and true, and I'd be equally happy with that system.)

I would also caution everyone that build as we go rules does not necessarily mean we'll have a Code of Laws. (I certainly hope we can avoid such a monstrosity.) We will most likely wind up with a series of initiatives, the bookkeeping of which will be interesting to see.
My impression, perhaps incorrect, is you’ve long held an antagonism against the Code of Laws, and it's never been clear to me why. (Remember, I’ve not been much involved in the DG so some of the legendary tussles that occurred in the past seem more like myth than reality to me.) Isn’t the COL fundamentally a means of organizing all the lower laws that the citizens form? As you say, in this game we’ll wind up with a series of initiatives – laws – and for bookkeeping purposes need to organize them in some manner. Isn’t that really all that the COL is? I feel that I'm missing something obvious here, but I don't understand what it is.

In the beginning (well, in an earlier DG) there were 3 bodies of law -- the Constitution, the Code of Laws, and the Code of Standards, each becoming more detailed than the last.

The impression that I get is that when there were really detailed laws, it was possible to get "sued" for something as simple as posting your official thead in Verdana font when others used Times Roman.

Well, not that bad, but we've gone through cycles of very detailed vs. very vague. The objection is to a "formal" CoL, where a less detailed rule will do.

At least that's how I interpret it.

The impression that I get is that when there were really detailed laws, it was possible to get "sued" for something as simple as posting your official thead in Verdana font when others used Times Roman.


That's just the thing I think makes the demogame "unfun". Users who just want to check things out, or even try and run for an office might be scared away by having to memorize so many rules. For a game that normally lasts 4-5 months (with 2 exceptions - lesson, NEVER do huge maps on high difficulty levels or marathon mode. :D), that might not even be worth it -- by the time they're even comfortable with the rules, the game's just about over. Then everyone starts off on a 3 month long ruleset discussion binge.

It might look fancy to some to have an "officially complex way of doing things" (on documents that would take months to prepare in of itself in the real world), but in a forum game that only lasts 4-5 months, I think it's asking a bit much.

My impression, perhaps incorrect, is you’ve long held an antagonism against the Code of Laws, and it's never been clear to me why. (Remember, I’ve not been much involved in the DG so some of the legendary tussles that occurred in the past seem more like myth than reality to me.) Isn’t the COL fundamentally a means of organizing all the lower laws that the citizens form? As you say, in this game we’ll wind up with a series of initiatives – laws – and for bookkeeping purposes need to organize them in some manner. Isn’t that really all that the COL is? I feel that I'm missing something obvious here, but I don't understand what it is.

You are correct in both your impression about my antagonism towards the CoL and the fact that the bookkeeping we will need will essentially be a CoL. I have nothing against using the CoL as a bookkeeping system for an evolving CoL. My antagonism towards the traditional DG CoL is that it has never been an evolving document. The past has seen us (time and time again) try to write a full set of DG rules before we even play the game. Most of the time there is pressure to start play before we have a well thought out CoL. (For those of you not paying attention that is happening again.) Then, once the flaws of the hurried CoL are evident we never fix them because few people want to actually write up rules. Trying to make a comprehensive set of rules is not only too difficult it assumes we have the same amount (and same type) of things to do throughout the [civ4] game. That's not true. Since the [civ4] game has opening, midgame and endgame phases, we need to be flexible in how we structure our collective decision making as the game enters a new phase.

So you see, I agree with Chieftess, that we should not start with a lot of rules. Maybe, just maybe, we'd end up focusing on the [civ4] game instead of the CoL.

Umm, ratification poll please? :D

DaveShack & Chieftess, thanks for the history lesson!

Donsig, thank you for explaining your distaste for the CoL (or whatever we decide to call it). What you say makes sense. I agree with you that circumstances evolve as the game progresses, and it’s difficult to write a comprehensive set of laws that’s useful and relevant both for the early game and the late game – and do it before we begin the game! It’s the flexibility that I most like about the build as you go approach. I continue to think it’d be better to create our judiciary as we go rather than write it into the Constitution, and for that reason may vote against your proposed constitution even though I otherwise like it very much. However, I’m still thinking about it.

Thanks for the conversation.