This poll is for ratifcation of a Constitution for DG2. It is a public poll and open for 10 days. A 2/3 majority is required to pass, not counting abstain -- meaning the number of yes votes must be greater than or equal to twice the number of no votes.

Shall the attached Constitution be ratified for DG2?
Yes
No
Abstain

Link to Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=201078)

This poll is posted at the request of donsig.

================================================== =======================

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.

This poll is posted at the request of donsig.

Not really. First of all, I would not request a public poll. Secondly, I would not have included an abstain option. Finally, as I indicated to DaveShack in response to a private message, I see no rush to ratify a constitution. Doesn't sound like we're getting off to an auspisious start, does it DaveShack?

As I said in the pm mentioned above, I have nothing against anyone posting a ratification poll. While not perfect this poll is acceptable and I do thank DaveShack for posting it.

Voted no
I don't want the judiciary in there.

Just for the sake of knowing, does the proposed Constitution in this poll match donsig's proposal, word for word?

I vote yes. Now lets bring on the COL to ratify.

Although I plan to vote yes anyway, here are a few minor things I would like changed:
1. All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
That is somewhat redundant

2. 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.
This doesn't state that only the tied candidates would be in the runoff, although it is assumed

Besides that it looks pretty good

Just for the sake of knowing, does the proposed Constitution in this poll match donsig's proposal, word for word?

Yes it does.

Not really. First of all, I would not request a public poll. Secondly, I would not have included an abstain option. Finally, as I indicated to DaveShack in response to a private message, I see no rush to ratify a constitution. Doesn't sound like we're getting off to an auspisious start, does it DaveShack?

As I said in the pm mentioned above, I have nothing against anyone posting a ratification poll. While not perfect this poll is acceptable and I do thank DaveShack for posting it.

Clarification: I did not mean to imply donsig asked for these specific options.

To paraphrase the conversation: Me: Are you going to post it? donsig: Can't right now but I don't mind if you do Me: Posted poll using my interpretation of traditional procedures for ratifications. ;)

Clarification: I did not mean to imply donsig asked for these specific options.

To paraphrase the conversation: Me: Are you going to post it? donsig: Can't right now but I don't mind if you do Me: Posted poll using my interpretation of traditional procedures for ratifications. ;)

Implications; interpretations and clarifications already. You guys still wanna play this game? :mischief:

where is the section explainging the offices, president, culture ect ect

where is the section explainging the offices, president, culture ect ect
that would go in a lower set of law, likely a CoL. The constitution is designed to be something that needs few changes from DG to DG

where is the section explainging the offices, president, culture ect ect

We might not have any offices. In that case nobody will do anything.

I'm in favor of the Constitution in principle, but voted no because I'm not entirely happy with defining the Judiciary in the document.

I dont care if the judicary is in the constitution, though it seems strange to have the judical branch but not the executive or legislative. Anyway It looks fine to me, i pass it.

I'm in favor of the Constitution in principle, but voted no because I'm not entirely happy with defining the Judiciary in the document.

I dont care if the judicary is in the constitution, though it seems strange to have the judical branch but not the executive or legislative. Anyway It looks fine to me, i pass it.

In my opinion there are two pluses to having the Judiciary in the Constitution:
1. The Constitution is hopefully the article we save from game to game, and the judiciary rarely changes, unlike executive offices

2. If the judiciary was defined in the Code of Laws it couldn't interpret the constitution. (Although some people may debate this...)

I voted yes, but I agree that the runoff election needs to be clarified that only the two tied candidates will be on the ballot.

Actually, read that section carefully. It's really vague, covering only the broad basics.

We need to create an Initiative that will fill in the details ("as further defined by law"), such as the length of terms, how runoffs are handled, heck, who RUNS the elections!

The clarification you're looking for is in there, the Election initiative, not the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

Thank you, Ravenfire! That is exactly how this constitution is designed to work.

ok, I approve of this.... And would officially vote for it (were I able)...

I do have one question, though, about this judiciary... Who appoints them? Or is that a lower law sort of a thing?

The judiciary are elected positions, unless nobody runs for them in which case in the past they have been appointed. (which BTW means we need an initiative for appointments, hint nudge ;) )

The judiciary are elected positions, unless nobody runs for them in which case in the past they have been appointed. (which BTW means we need an initiative for appointments, hint nudge ;) )

No, we need an initiative for ELECTIONS (broad hint).

-- Ravensfire

The way elections were handled for DP's seemed pretty damn good... Do you think that could be manhandled into a system for regular elections?

I may be going out on a limb here but I'd say we could hold judicial elections without an initiative (though an initiative would formalize things).

Appointments are another matter entirely. Just who would do the appointing?

Whoever is our head of state, I expect... (Assuming that's the same thing as this 'President' office which is bandied around?)

I mean the poor Head of state dosen't seem to have much in the way of personal power at the moment... And appointing judges is the sort of thing heads of state generally do...

If the judges aren't democratically elected, they may feel more able to hand down just rulings even if they are unpopular

I'll save this webpage and read it before voting and posting comments.

DaveShack, could you extend the poll deadline please?

I know you've guys said that you dont want to change the constitution much from game to game, but I feel that this should pull away from the basic ideas of other constitution. I especially feel that the concept that for any office selection there should be any representives that take a vote for the people. Instead, I think that there should be no private votes for anything. Representive branch officails should be able to make there own decisions that they are granted or there should be no legaslative branch, but that citizens directly elect all officials.
(PS: If you have anything to say about these ideas don't be afraid to private message me or reply on the forum and promise a good logical debate for my ideas.)
PSS: this is my first DG and i was wondering how, or even if, political parties are part of the game

i voted because some of the terms are strange and ambiguous

@jdubdixon

It is possible that political parties could be part of this I believe... This was briefly mentioned in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=204607

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing with elected officers: Do you mean that we elect officials who get to make decisions without consulting the general public beforehand? If so then I must say that i think that such a system would exclude the majority of the players of the Demogame from having a part in the decision making process...

If you're proposing that they get to make theier own decisions, which can then be veto'd by the general populus/demos, then I believe that that is indeed a very good idea...

DaveShack, could you extend the poll deadline please?

never mind

I have read the constitution and I think that it is pretty good. :goodjob:

However, I feel that this part should be changed even though I support the constitution.


Quote:
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.

This doesn't state that only the tied candidates would be in the runoff, although it is assumed

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing with elected officers: Do you mean that we elect officials who get to make decisions without consulting the general public beforehand? If so then I must say that i think that such a system would exclude the majority of the players of the Demogame from having a part in the decision making process...

If you're proposing that they get to make theier own decisions, which can then be veto'd by the general populus/demos, then I believe that that is indeed a very good idea...
I was saying the opposite of the first part and I agree and mabey I misunderstood the part about private elections but i thought that that was what the constitution was saying. I was saying that second part but now relised that it was to implied above, so sorry about that.

never mind

I have read the constitution and I think that it is pretty good. :goodjob:

However, I feel that this part should be changed even though I support the constitution.
ordinaryguy,

Your concern about runoffs was mentioned earlier, and the preferred method to handle it was noted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5057424&postcount=17).

-- Ravensfire

The thing about "private elections" just means that election polls must NOT be marked "public". Meaning anyone can vote in them, and nobody can see your vote.

Generally speaking, we don't allow any polls directly concerning an individual to be public.

I've voted "no" because I do not feel that an amendment should be easier to get than the original constitution. (G2) The necessary majorities should be equal.


As for the runoff election(s), it might be interesting to have all the candidates back in the race. Since we seem to be pushing a relative majority-decision as the general election patter, so why not differ from the real world's way there as well.

ordinaryguy,

Your concern about runoffs was mentioned earlier, and the preferred method to handle it was noted here.

ok. I must have missed that post. sorry about cross-post

ok. I must have missed that post. sorry about cross-post
Different page - stuff gets missed - no problem!

That concept is core to this idea - the Constitution is the broad framework, has has lots of areas that are filled in by the initiatives that we propose and pass. The election section is a great example - it just says we have them. Doesn't say when, doesn't say how, just that we have them, and that only one person can win.

Those details - the when and the how, are to be filled in by some type of an Election Initiative. Combine that with a Starting Offices initiative, and we're much closer to starting!

-- Ravensfire

Poll closed with a final tally of 32-8-2. (76%, 19%, 2%)

So we have a constitution now, right?

Yay!

How do we celebrate?

I'm a complete noob to the demo game and I'm just a little curious about Article E.

- Do you think this will actually prevent people from playing the save multiple times to see what works?
- Is there some mechanism I'm not seeing that actually inhibits playing the save w/o authorization?
- No punishment is specified for violations. What would happen if you believed (or even knew) that someone had done some exploring of options?

We have a constitution.YEAH!!!:woohoo: :clap: :worship: :beer: :thanx:

I'm a complete noob to the demo game and I'm just a little curious about Article E.

- Do you think this will actually prevent people from playing the save multiple times to see what works?
- Is there some mechanism I'm not seeing that actually inhibits playing the save w/o authorization?
- No punishment is specified for violations. What would happen if you believed (or even knew) that someone had done some exploring of options?

Typically it works, but there have been occasional lapses (see below).

We could build a special DG mod and only distribute it to authorized people, but that would also prevent people from innocently looking at the save.

There have been isolated incidents where someone has explored and posted the results of that exploration. Usually your friendly mods remove the evidence as soon as we notice it, to avoid contaminating the game, and take actions to stop the posting of more info, at least temporarily. How it goes from there is case by case, no point in speculating. ;)

I'm a complete noob to the demo game and I'm just a little curious about Article E.

- Do you think this will actually prevent people from playing the save multiple times to see what works?
- Is there some mechanism I'm not seeing that actually inhibits playing the save w/o authorization?
- No punishment is specified for violations. What would happen if you believed (or even knew) that someone had done some exploring of options?

In short it's mostly an honor system, any punishment would be decided by the public on a case by case basis.

But in short it's to emphasize that we really don't want any advantage we wouldn't have playing a normal game through. So no going ahead of the current point to see what happens. No getting data about other civs we don't normally have (ie. looking at them in world builder and such is bad).

We want to play through the game straight like a normal game, and want to see the surprises as they come.

If you want to play the demogame save on your own, you can... HOWEVER, that would preclude you from participating in the demogame, since you might have discovered information that we would not normally have access to and would potentially change the way we play.

A few times during previous demogames while viewing the save I did accidentally hit space and went to the next turn. I immediately reloaded the old save, and refused to comment on anything that might have popped up. I also refused to participate in any discussion where anything that might have happened would effect my stance on an issue. Though thankfully most of the time nothing major happened, just troop movements (which I tried my best to ignore, so I wouldn't remember them).

Things like the example above happening is not unheard of and not really punished. The point is don't intentionally do it, and if you do accidentally do it don't pay attention to anything if possible, and don't comment on anything which you weren't able to ignore, or vote on anything that could be effected by what you saw.