Citizen's Initiative - The Tribal Government Act of 4000BC

Section 1 – Offices
In order to function, the structure of the Government must be defined, and duties allocated. In all of the offices declared below, the specifics of how the office is run are left up to the office holder. Office holders can delegate duties, but not responsibilities. This means an official can have another citizen conduct actions in their name, but the official is responsible for the actions, or lack thereof.

As our nation is small, this government reflects that reality.

The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation. They control all units and have all powers not granted to another official. This includes overseeing Elections and the Designated Player pool.

Each city will have an Elder. The Elder controls all functions of the city. If a city is founded in mid-term, the Elder will be appointed by the Chieftain. The Elder for the first city will be elected in the first term.

Additional offices may be created by initiative. Offices created in the middle of a term will be filled by appointment, for that term only.

Section 2 – Coup
Officials may be removed from office by a Coup. To declare a Coup, any citizen may post a thread in the citizen forum declaring a coup against an official or group of officials. If two other citizens support the coup, a poll is posted asking if the citizens support the official(s) targeted by the coup. This poll is private, single-choice, and must be set to expire in 4 days.

If the number of citizens that voted to not support the officials exceeds by number of citizens that voted to support the officials by at least one and a half as many votes (a 3/5 majority), the coup is successful. The citizen who originally called for the coup immediately replaces the official targeted by the coup. If more than one official is targeted, the citizen may choose which office they take. The citizens removed from office may not be reappointed to any office for 7 days.

If the coup fails, the citizen calling for the coup is removed from any elected office they hold. They may not be appointed to any office for 7 days. They may not call for another coup for the remainder of the current term.

Section 3 – Confirmations
Any appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll. If a confirmation poll does not already exist for an appointment, any citizen may create such a poll. This poll must be created within 48 hours of the appointment, and must ask "Do you approve of <description of appointment>", contain only Yes, No and Abstain options, be marked private, single-choice and expire in 2 days. When the poll closes, if the majority of citizens, not including abstain, voted No, the appointment is overturned. Any other result confirms the appointment.


Changelog
v.0
-- Posted

v.1
-- Renamed Warlord to Chieftain (I suspect we’ll have a military leader in the mid-late first term, and Warlord is the perfect title for that!)
-- Added clause about adding offices
-- Clarified that we start with one elected elder
-- Cleanup of language throughout proposal

Todo
-- Come up with a better name than Chieftain. Really. I don’t like it, but think Warlord makes a great name for military leader.

Comments:
Thanks for supporting my Tribal idea! I think it’s a slick little system, and it interjects some fun into a usually droll subject. I think we’ll be able to see some of the positions we create change in both duties and in names over time. (Chief Scout in charge of exploration becomes Foreign Affairs when those duties are needed, Warlord renamed to Marshall as the military gets larger, etc).

Please – look through it to find any inconsistencies and conflicts with the Constitution. Likewise, if you’ve got any suggestions, please post ‘em.

My plan is to post on Saturday a proposed poll, and post the Initiative poll on Monday, with the poll running for 4 days.

wow ravens fire.. very well written and thought out..
i highly support this document..
roleplaying this game is gonna be FUN!

Been Googling for synonyms for chieftain:

tribal chief
ruler
chief
overlord
lord

I like lord or overlord :)

Could the cheiftan have the power to Create offices, without a initiative. But make it vetoable by a poll.

For titles besides chieftain:


High Chief
Paramount Chief
Patriarch/Matriarch
Supreme Chief
Lord Chieftain
Grand High Pooh-Bah :p


Beyond that:

Traditionally, the citizens en masse have been considered to be a legislature. Is that intentionally excluded? If not, then I have a few names:


Tribal Council
Some derivation of "Thing" if we're the Vikings or maybe the Germans (e.g. Althing, Folketing)
People's Assembly
Tribal Assembly
National Assembly
Ekklesia (if we're the Greeks--name of the Athenian assembly)
Plebean Assembly (if we're the Romans, though it could actually work for anything)


How 'bout it?

If the number of citizens that voted to not support the officials exceeds by number of citizens that voted to support the officials by at least one and a half as many votes (a 3/5 majority), the coup is successful.


I don't think this parses as you intended. It sounds like:

(noSupport - yesSupport) > (1.5 * yesSupport)

which would require about 71.4% voting no support. Why not say:

"The coup will be successful if at least 60% of the votes are for not supporting the official"

or

"The coup will be successful if at least 60% of the votes are supporting the coup"

-- Come up with a better name than Chieftain. Really. I don’t like it, but think Warlord makes a great name for military leader.

Too academic-sounding. Let's try:


Jefe
El Supremo
BossMan
Ugg the Merciless
Fearless Leader
The Man

It should have been "If the number of citizens that voted to not support the officials is at least one and a half times as many as those voting to support the officials (a 3/5 majority), the coup is successful."

I like the 60% language better.

Too academic-sounding. Let's try:


Jefe
El Supremo
BossMan
Ugg the Merciless
Fearless Leader
The Man


Two points:

1. And when a woman is elected leader...?
2. If you're going with these, let's try El Comandante or variant.

1. And when a woman is elected leader...?
2. If you're going with these, let's try El Comandante or variant.


My thought was we were investing this person with loads of power, so her first official act could be to change the title to

Mother of Creation and President for Life - Her Indomitable Majesty Ursula the First

The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation. They control all units and have all powers not granted to another official. This includes overseeing Elections and the Designated Player pool.
. . .
Offices created in the middle of a term will be filled by appointment, for that term only.


It follows that the Chieftain makes all appointments, though less experienced people may not string together these two sections in that way. Perhaps spell it out? Also remember we had a problem in DG1 when there was no official with the power to appoint a new President. Up to you if you think something needs to be done to cover that. :)


If the number of citizens that voted to not support the officials exceeds by number of citizens that voted to support the officials by at least one and a half as many votes (a 3/5 majority), the coup is successful.

See previous post on a wording which correctly results in 3/5.

If more than one official is targeted, the citizen may choose which office they take.

What if the citizen calls for a coup on Chieftain and Elder, and then chooses the Elder job? Really this is the same comment as above. Also, are Judiciary members eligible? I see nothing in the Constitution which would prevent it.


The timing is pushing it a little. With that schedule we'd be forced into nominations on the 22nd, which is too late. Can it be fully approved by 23:59 GMT on the 20th, which would mean posting the initiative by 23:59 GMT tomorrow? Or cut the poll duration to 3 days?

Or are you trying to set us up for a start after the 1st just to see how hard I'll push? :cool:

The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation. They control all units and have all powers not granted to another official. This includes overseeing Elections and the Designated Player pool.


Is it just me or should this be: He controls and has.

This poll is private, single-choice, and must be set to expire in 4 days.


Will it have an abstain option :rolleyes:

Is it just me or should this be: He controls and has.
I think I've got it right - trying for a gender neutral wording.
Will it have an abstain option :rolleyes:
Yes/No/Abstain

-- Ravensfire

If you want it neutral and not plural:

The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation and controls all units. The Chieftain has all powers not granted to another official. This includes overseeing Elections and the Designated Player pool.

Perhaps change another into any other but that's ant f***** as we Dutch say.

Presenting ... v.2
Citizen's Initiative - The Tribal Government Act of 4000BC

Section 1 - Offices
In order to function, the structure of the Government must be defined, and duties allocated. In all of the offices declared below, the specifics of how the office is run are left up to the office holder. Office holders can delegate duties, but not responsibilities. This means an official can have another citizen conduct actions in their name, but the official is responsible for the actions, or lack thereof. These positions are created by the official delegating one or more of their duties, and are in effect only for that term. The official may use any method to fill the position.

As our nation is small, this government reflects that reality.

The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation. They control all units and have all powers not granted to another official. This includes overseeing Elections and the Designated Player pool.

Each city will have an Elder. The Elder controls all functions of the city. If a city is founded in mid-term, the Elder will be appointed by the Chieftain. The Elder for the first city will be elected in the first term.

Additional offices must be created by initiative.

Section 2 - Vacant Offices
Offices are vacant when one or more of the following conditions is met:
No citizen was elected to the office, at the conclusion of the election cycle
When the current office holder resigns for any reason
when the current office holder is absent from the game for more than 7 days without an explanation, as determined by the Judiciary
When an office is created in the middle of a term.

Vacant offices are filled by the Chieftain appointing a citizen to that office. If there is a designated deputy for an office, that citizen must be offered the office first. If the Chieftain office is absent, the Elders will collectively determine a new Chieftain.

All appointments to a vacant office are subject to a confirmation poll.

Section 3 - Coup
Any elected official may be removed from office by a Coup. To declare a Coup, any citizen may post a thread in the citizen forum declaring a coup against an official or group of officials. If two other citizens support the coup, a poll is posted asking if the citizens support the official(s) targeted by the coup. This poll is private, single-choice, and must be set to expire in 4 days.

If the number of citizens that voted to not support gain 60% of the total votes in that poll (including abstain), the coup is successful. The citizen who originally called for the coup immediately replaces the official targeted by the coup. If more than one official is targeted, the citizen may choose which office they take. The citizens removed from office may not be reappointed to any office for 7 days.

If the coup fails, the citizen calling for the coup is removed from any elected office they hold. They may not be appointed to any office for 7 days. They may not call for another coup for the remainder of the current term.

Section 4 - Confirmations
Any appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll. If a confirmation poll does not already exist for an appointment, any citizen may create such a poll. This poll must be created within 48 hours of the appointment, and must ask "Do you approve of <description of appointment>", contain only Yes, No and Abstain options, be marked private, single-choice and expire in 2 days. When the poll closes, if the majority of citizens, not including abstain, voted No, the appointment is overturned. Any other result confirms the appointment.


Changelog
v.0
-- Posted

v.1
-- Renamed Warlord to Chieftain (I suspect we’ll have a military leader in the mid-late first term, and Warlord is the perfect title for that!)
-- Added clause about adding offices
-- Clarified that we start with one elected elder
-- Cleanup of language throughout proposal

v.2
-- Added section on appointments/vacant offices
-- Corrected the coup poll interpretation section (thanks to those that pointed and laughed!)
-- Cleared up that ANY elected official can be targetted by a coup (yes, that includes the Judiciary).



TODO:
-- Still not 100% happy with Chieftain, but I like it better than the other suggestions. Option - Tribal Elder (top office) and Village Elder (governors)?

Comments:
@Nobody - They can create positions - this allows any Tribal official (not the Judiciary, sorry Judges - you're stuck!) to delegate duties to another citizen. The elected person is still responsible for the actions of the citizen in that position. This allows a temporary position to be created quickly, to see if it works. If people like it, pass an initiative and create the office.

@Lockesdonkey - I think the Constitution covers your main point, and that's where it should be. I'm trying not to put such a clause in here, as something that important comes from the Constitution (see clause about all power coming from the people). In addition, I hope to see the citizens as a group create their own name. That, to me, would be quite cool to see.

@730195 - Yup, thanks!

@DS - Thanks also on the poll. Agree with the 60%. Intentionally added Abstain there - it's a vote that allows the citizen to say "I don't support the coup, but I don't support the current office holder." Coups should have strong support to succeed, hence the 60% of all votes.
- Cleared up appointment section greated, plus added vacant Chieftain process
- Cleared up who can be targetted by the coup, and elected officials does include the Judiciary
- Speeding it up, hmmm, let's see how these revisions look to people.

-- Ravensfire

I like it.

One technical glitch, "any elected official" could be interpreted by some as not applying to people who are appointed to an office which is normally elected. Most of us would know what it means, but it only takes two to gum up the works. :rolleyes:

I like it.

One technical glitch, "any elected official" could be interpreted by some as not applying to people who are appointed to an office which is normally elected. Most of us would know what it means, but it only takes two to gum up the works. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I can see that.

Original:
Any elected official may be removed from office by a Coup.

Option 1:
Any elected or appointed official may be removed from office by a Coup.

Option 2:
Any citizen holding an elected office may be removed from office by a Coup.

-- Ravensfire

Option 1 would be my preference. Option 2 can still be interperted either way, as one could argue that since they were appointed than they do not hold an elected office. I may be stretching it, but why test it. Go with option 1.

I prefer option 2 of these two.

Option 3:
Any citizen holding an (elected) office may be removed from office by a Coup.

Very nice, ravensfire.

On the singular/plural/gender-neutrality of the Chieftain in Section 1: I'm fine with it either way, but the use of singular sounds better to my ear. Logically, if we keep the plural it should be the "chieftain are the supreme leader" to match "they control ..." One way around this and to keep essentially the original wording is "The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation, and controls all units and has all powers not granted to another official."

On the coup/elected official matter I suggest rewriting it, "Any official may be removed from office by a Coup." Otherwise option 1 is the way to go.

The return of v.3

Citizen's Initiative - The Tribal Government Act of 4000BC

Section 1 - Offices
In order to function, the structure of the Government must be defined, and duties allocated. In all of the offices declared below, the specifics of how the office is run are left up to the office holder. Office holders can delegate duties, but not responsibilities. This means an official can have another citizen conduct actions in their name, but the official is responsible for the actions, or lack thereof. These positions are created by the official delegating one or more of their duties, and are in effect only for that term. The official may use any method to fill the position.

As our nation is small, this government reflects that reality.


The Chieftain is the supreme leader of our nation, and controls all units and has all powers not granted to another official. This includes overseeing Elections and the Designated Player pool.

Each city will have an Elder. The Elder controls all functions of the city. If a city is founded in mid-term, the Elder will be appointed by the Chieftain. The Elder for the first city will be elected in the first term.

Additional offices must be created by initiative.

Section 2 - Vacant Offices
Offices are vacant when one or more of the following conditions is met:
No citizen was elected to the office, at the conclusion of the election cycle
When the current office holder resigns for any reason
when the current office holder is absent from the game for more than 7 days without an explanation, as determined by the Judiciary
When an office is created in the middle of a term.

Vacant offices are filled by the Chieftain appointing a citizen to that office. If there is a designated deputy for an office, that citizen must be offered the office first. If the Chieftain office is absent, the Elders will collectively determine a new Chieftain.

All appointments to a vacant office are subject to a confirmation poll.

Section 3 - Coup
Any official, including the Judiciary, may be removed from office by a Coup. To declare a Coup, any citizen may post a thread in the citizen forum declaring a coup against an official or group of officials. If two other citizens support the coup, a poll is posted asking if the citizens support the official(s) targeted by the coup. This poll is private, single-choice, and must be set to expire in 4 days.

If the number of citizens that voted to not support gain 60% of the total votes in that poll (including abstain), the coup is successful. The citizen who originally called for the coup immediately replaces the official targeted by the coup. If more than one official is targeted, the citizen may choose which office they take. The citizens removed from office may not be reappointed to any office for 7 days.

If the coup fails, the citizen calling for the coup is removed from any elected office they hold. They may not be appointed to any office for 7 days. They may not call for another coup for the remainder of the current term.

Section 4 - Confirmations
Any appointment may be challenged by a confirmation poll. If a confirmation poll does not already exist for an appointment, any citizen may create such a poll. This poll must be created within 48 hours of the appointment, and must ask "Do you approve of <description of appointment>", contain only Yes, No and Abstain options, be marked private, single-choice and expire in 2 days. When the poll closes, if the majority of citizens, not including abstain, voted No, the appointment is overturned. Any other result confirms the appointment.


Changelog
v.0
-- Posted

v.1
-- Renamed Warlord to Chieftain (I suspect we’ll have a military leader in the mid-late first term, and Warlord is the perfect title for that!)
-- Added clause about adding offices
-- Clarified that we start with one elected elder
-- Cleanup of language throughout proposal

v.2
-- Added section on appointments/vacant offices
-- Corrected the coup poll interpretation section (thanks to those that pointed and laughed!)
-- Cleared up that ANY elected official can be targetted by a coup (yes, that includes the Judiciary).

v.3
-- Cleaned up language defining Chieftain
-- Cleaned up language for who can be targetted by a Coup (modified version of option 3)

Status: Proposed Poll

Comments:
Poll will go up Saturday AM, pending significant issue. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions, comments and help - it's greatly appreciated.

-- Ravensfire

I still think we could do better than Chieftain for a title.

That can be changed at any time. After passing this so elections can start sounds good. :)

Captain? (stupid 10 char. limit)

Poll is up!

Link to poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=207890)

Again, thanks to all for your comments and suggestions!

-- Ravensfire

I voted no because this tribal government is just made to be temporary and just for the begging when the country is small. In the original vote for the kind of government i said how we could make it stronger and similair to the roman empire.
here it is:
I think that tribalism is a great idea. I also think that it wont have to be changed as we grow but that if we style it around the Roman Empire. To do this i propose (and this will probaply be hashed out after the vote) we make the warlord the elder of the capitol and we give the warlord control over troop movement that leaves our borders, construction of improvements, gives the authority to build world wonder, national wonder, and projects in any city, and construction in cities for civil defense during wartimes. If there is a coup against the warlord then it should be a coup against all the other elders and that all the elders are removed and that the new warlord chooses all the new elders if successful. Warlords should also have a life limit like mabey one age or less and after that the warlord can become governor of any city (but the capitol of course). Tell me what you think.

To do this i propose (and this will probaply be hashed out after the vote) we make the warlord the elder of the capitol and we give the warlord control over troop movement that leaves our borders, construction of improvements, gives the authority to build world wonder, national wonder, and projects in any city, and construction in cities for civil defense during wartimes.

I think you make a great point. The fact that the first first few turns of the game are solely focused on what our city is building, where our city is built and what our first tech research is suggests to me that dividing that authority into two offices could be quite detrimental to our feldgling socitety.

If there is a coup against the warlord then it should be a coup against all the other elders and that all the elders are removed and that the new warlord chooses all the new elders if successful.

I guess this is something that probably wouldn't affect us so soon, although it could, but I'm not sure that just because a national leader is deposed that all the local leaders are deposed as well. Who knows, our first coup could very well be led by an elder

Does it seem to anyone else that the accepted nominations are all experienced people who seem to "rule" the forums? Some people might be better at Civ Demogames, and yet they are excluded because of their # of posts!

S-LRG Chairman,
boy_tex

Does it seem to anyone else that the accepted nominations are all experienced people who seem to "rule" the forums? Some people might be better at Civ Demogames, and yet they are excluded because of their # of posts!

S-LRG Chairman,
boy_tex

Look at it like this, if you had two candidates running for a political party where one was someone you knew of and possibly well, and the other was someone you didn't know anything about, who would you choose? Some of us have seen each other around before and not just in the Demogame (for instance, I know of dutchfire from the Hall of Fame forums). You tend to lean towards them as you know them.

Another example: I do not consider myself a friend of Donsig's (I mean no offense Donsig), but I've read his posts and arguments in the previous game, so I feel he would make a great candidate for the Chief Judiciary. It's not because of his high number of posts, but because I recall his actions from the previous game. The newer members of CFC are unknown, I personally know nothing about them. I don't lean away from them because they are new, but because I don't know them.

If you stay active this term all of us will get to know both you and other new players better and you'll have a much better chance if you run for office next term. I'm not saying don't this term, just saying you will have a much better chance after we get to know you.

I see what you mean, I just think it seems to be THE SAME people over and over, but I'm cool with that.

Does it seem to anyone else that the accepted nominations are all experienced people who seem to "rule" the forums? Some people might be better at Civ Demogames, and yet they are excluded because of their # of posts!

S-LRG Chairman,
boy_tex

Is there a connection between number of posts and being nominated? Seems fairly obvious. The more someone posts, the better others can understand him/her and the greater consideration they get for leadership posts.

Is anyone "excluded" because of number of posts? Doesn't look that way, other than it is a "democracy" and that means you may win an election or you may lose. If you want to be "included", more posts is probably important. Sell yourself to your fellow citizens and remember the first election is not the only one, just the first.

Though I have a large number of posts, I've never participated in a Demogame before, and here I am a candidate for Judge Advocate--and I didn't self-nominate. I think there isn't as much discrimination as is thought...

I usually nominate based on current participation. When voting, I put a higher value on well-stated positions on the current situation than I do on sheer number of posts or number of previous positions held.

There are some DGers who tend to favor the "members of the club", but brand new CFC members have a sizeable percentage of the total registrations for the game.

I see what you mean, I just think it seems to be THE SAME people over and over, but I'm cool with that.
A big chunk of that is that these same people DO run for office - there are more than a few people that simply don't run for office, and don't participate in the DG. Others only participate in a few aspects of the game (which includes me!).

Personally, I tend to respect, and vote, for people that actively participate in all aspects of the game. I like to see that involvement. I also like to see people that can present their ideas, thoughts and plans in a reasoned manner. This IS a game about influence - if you cannot influence someone because you lack clarity in your message, why should you get my vote?

Finally, I do look at track record for certain offices. For President/Chieftain/Top job, it's highly unlikely I'd vote for someone new to an elected office. My personal view is that position is absolutely critical to the DG - it needs someone with some experience.

The rest of the positions - present your thoughts and plans, and do it well, and you get my vote.

-- Ravensfire

I just well hope that the number of posts someone makes doesnt affect the chance of election.. but alas it will..

people with thousands of posts have not only been in demo games... but also other threads and forums throughout this site..

I just hope that the populace will look at platforms instead of post ammount..

It would stink to see the entire game ran by people with thousands of posts while the newer demo gamers (200 or less posts) sit on the wayside. Oh well.. we'll live :D

A big chunk of that is that these same people DO run for office - there are more than a few people that simply don't run for office, and don't participate in the DG. Others only participate in a few aspects of the game (which includes me!).

Personally, I tend to respect, and vote, for people that actively participate in all aspects of the game. I like to see that involvement. I also like to see people that can present their ideas, thoughts and plans in a reasoned manner. This IS a game about influence - if you cannot influence someone because you lack clarity in your message, why should you get my vote?

Finally, I do look at track record for certain offices. For President/Chieftain/Top job, it's highly unlikely I'd vote for someone new to an elected office. My personal view is that position is absolutely critical to the DG - it needs someone with some experience.

The rest of the positions - present your thoughts and plans, and do it well, and you get my vote.

-- Ravensfire

True, I'll also look at how active a person is in the DG before I even consider voting for them.

Yes, experience and skill would be preferred but of course there may be exceptions...

If you just keep posting and keep running for positions, you'll get attention and people will vote for you. I think it's just natural that people will vote on people they know more easily.