Are our cabinet votes obsoleted by the constitution? Do we really need them?

I found some problems with cabinet-votes conflicting the constitution.

Our councilmen are forced to bring cabinet-votes to the citizenry by polls. But the constitution says:
Section D: The Cabinet
Article 2: The Department heads duties include deciding their department policy and activities based on the wishes of the citizens. Department heads should post polls and posts to get citizen input. With the poll results and input they give instructions and advice to the President who then plays them out in the game.
and also
Section J: Impeachment
Article 1: It may become evident that an elected official isn't making decisions based on the results of the opinon polls.
Which would then lead to all leaders voting in the cabinet-poll not complying to the citizen-poll posted by the councilmen being impeached, which would make the cabinet-poll totally useless.

proposal:
why not handle it like in the chat?
no cabinet-poll, except when there is a good reason for it (no conclusive citizen poll, urge of decision etc). also, if a cabinet-poll takes place, a public investigation should automatically be started (like in the chat)
another reason for a cabinet-poll would maybe be that too few (number has to be defined) citizens voted.

DISCUSSION WANTED!

I don't think cabinet polls are obsolete yet. For example, making a new amendment to the constitution, or a poll for some in-game decision (sort of like a spot-vote, except it's outside of the chat).

i maybe comply to you with the special tasks for the cabinet-polls (like the cons), which could be handled like the cabinet-spots in the chat with declaring why they took this kind of vote instead of a citizen vote.
i can not comply with you in the point of the in-game decisions. they whould be taken by the citizenry. otherwise this would only be a game of the officials and all other citizens could also leave the game without affecting it.
the reason for this game is not to watch 10 ppl play a game of civ3, but to take those ingame decisions.

I can see how those articles could be misinterpreted. Take them as they relate to each other though. The polls referenced are the ones to create policy and plans. Council Votes are a different animal.

so what should council-vote be for? and why dont use the way the chat-votes work?

Cabinet votes are to be used to make changes to the constitution and to override a decision made by one of the leaders or governors. I don't think they have been used for the second purpose yet, but we have had many changes to the constitution.

so why dont we just state this clearly in the constitution? and also we should add a rule that if a decision is overridden by a council-vote, a public investigation of this action should be taken (like in the turn-chat).
it should also be stated that citizens polls are binding!

Originally posted by disorganizer
so why dont we just state this clearly in the constitution? and also we should add a rule that if a decision is overridden by a council-vote, a public investigation of this action should be taken (like in the turn-chat).
it should also be stated that citizens polls are binding!
It does. Section L:

Article 4: Administrative votes are called by the President. An affirmative result overrules an elected official's instructions and decisions for game play.

Article 5: Legislative votes are called by any Council member or the President. An affirmative result alters or amends the Constitution. The President can veto a legislative vote, preventing a change in the constitution.

Article 6: Mobilization votes are called by the President, Military Leader or Domestic Leader. An affirmative result places the economy in Mobilization mode.

Article 7: Spot votes are Administrative votes carried out within the turn chat. They are called by the designated player.

In the case of an Administrative Council Vote overriding a Leader, this is the Presidential perogative and it would be answered for at election time.

It also does say that if a Leader ignores the Citizen polls they can be impeached.

so how can there still be council votes not reflecting the citizens polls of the councilmen?

Originally posted by disorganizer
so how can there still be council votes not reflecting the citizens polls of the councilmen?
Aha! I see what you're getting at now!

Council Leader's game decisions must obey the polls. Council Votes are by the concience of the voter and they don't have to match the polls. This is why we have the two automatic votes to represent the citizens.

As there are two auto citizen votes and at least one Council proponent to bring up the issue, only 2 of the remaining 5 Council members are needed to pass the measure the citizens want. It's highly unlikely that this would happen. If it does happen, it should. In this case, the majority of the Council that the citizens elected (presumably because they trusted their judgement) have decided that something is a bad idea (or good idea, as the case may be). Let it fly - it'll all wash out in the elections. If they were right, they get reelected. If they were wrong, they don't.

but the problem is ppl go away from us because they think the government has all the power.

I don't know...

I have to admit that I have not been able to spend much time looking at how the other departments are run but I think everybody has a fair shake in what goes on in Foreign Affairs. I examine the save game and post a proposal for citizen review. The plan is altered based on discussion up until just a little before the chat turn.

I guess now that I look at it, I'm pretty much doing what you suggested. The only difference is I'm starting the conversation at a particular place instead of letting it develop from scratch.

and i think these things are totally missing in the constitution.

ppl come here, read the cons and then think: why do i stay here? there are 6 guys playing a game of civ3. so what? i have nothing to do in there.
if you only read the cons and not the forum-threads (+logs) you get this thinking easily. so the cons should reflect how the game really works.
at the moment, it more or less reads like the gov plays, the cits watch.

That's a valid point. The Constitution concentrates almost entirely on the officials. Even though the Citizens do have decision making power, thread posting ability, etc, the only thing specifically mentioned is that they can't post binding polls. I'll start working up a new section "Citizens" that lists out citizen rights, responsibilities, and powers. I'll post it here as soon as I have a working copy so we can go over it.

yahoo! thats good. maybe it should even be the first part of the constitution... like "what is the POWER OF THE PEOPLE"?
the passage should be simple and quick understood.
if they go to the main forum and read the "what is..." thread, and then go to the cons, they should have the first thread about their power. some will then even quit reading further, so the first sentences should point out all positive things about being a citizen.

Originally posted by disorganizer
yahoo! thats good. maybe it should even be the first part of the constitution...
Yeah, first or second (Game Mechanics being the other choice).

now could we also agree of taking some power out of the cabinet-votes?

* maybe we should state that all in-game decisions should be taken as citizens polls to the forum, if immediate action is needed taken as citizen poll in the chat.
* we should state that cabinet-votes are primarily for constitutional decisions. they should also have the power to overturn any other decision, but will then face public investigation and maybe lead to empeachment of the initiator, no matter wheter being on forum or chat.
* and important: citizen polls, no matter which, are binding for the cabinet. no should like its in the cons now. a must.

did i forget something ?

You're going to have a harder time bringing me around on this one, my friend. ;)

1 - There are too many decisions for all of them to be taken to the polls. Pure democracies just don't really work well. Many decisions are made in the discussion threads without any poll. Many of the little decisions are "automatics" based on the larger ones. What would help here is to get more organized. Foreign Affairs, and now Domestic Dept as well, post a link to their discussion threads and polls inside their department threads. If a citizen can subscribe to just the department threads and be guaranteed to be alerted to every discussion and poll, this would help imensely.

2 - The specific powers of the votes are already spelled out in the Constitution. I feel very strongly that Council Votes must be a vote of concience. If you remove all tension and discord you also remove growth and evolution.

3 - I already do this so it wouldn't make a difference in how I run my office day to day. I'm pretty sure the rest of the Cabinet does as well. I'm leary of putting manacles on officials though. There will always be the case where a late fact changes or invalidates a previous discussion. With this rule as law there would be no option for a Leader to use his/her intelligence to adapt a situation. My action of not including the chat/turn article in the last amendment is a good example. New information made the original poll suspect or invalid. I used my judgement to exclude it and was vindicated. If this rule had been in place I would have had no choice but to include it and a grand new mess would have been created.

1- im with you on this one. a clear discussion thread with no contras should be handled like a poll. and departments should get organized better (maybe dont make it a rule, but a recomendation?)
2+3- so whats so anoying about having to face public investigation in the forum for a leaders decision against a poll? if he was right, ppl will not punish him there (you should have the exprience with the investigation#1). if he was wrong, he will get a "last warning" or is sued by the citizens, which could happen anyway. so if we implement the chat-rulez to the forum this could work well. the leader still has the oportunity to decide something, but will always think about wheter he really wants to do it and wheter he has a good reason to do so.

But my action that led to investigation #1 was done knowing that I wasn't breaking a rule. The rule was that I should follow the poll result. You're proposing that we make the rule that I must follow the poll result. If I must follow the poll results then there are many repercussions. 1st, there's no need for Council Votes and I think they're a valuable part of the game. 2nd, there's no need for the At-Large Councilors and I think they're also a valuable part of the game. 3rd, people like me who are rule sticklers would be unable to exercise our judgement because the rule prevents us from doing so.

EDIT: I also think that the existing rules are taking care of this very well, as we saw in investigation #1. Since we already have a way to monitor and judge against poll infractions I don't think it's necessary to go a step further.

but all this should be stated clearer in the constitution somehow. thats my problem. if you only read the constitution and dont read what really happens, it looks like only the officials have power.
i know this is not true, but the constitution should also reflect it.
maybe just a part that a public investigation is started every time a citizen poll is not followed or a cabinet-vote is started? like you did in your case (nobody could have forced you to do so at the moment)

btw: we should also allow not-binding polls. this should be explicitly stated in the poll description. or we make unbinding default and have the binding polls to be specially taged with a description.
like "INOFFICIAL:what is the winnig goal we want to reach at the moment?"

Originally posted by disorganizer
but all this should be stated clearer in the constitution somehow. thats my problem. if you only read the constitution and dont read what really happens, it looks like only the officials have power.
i know this is not true, but the constitution should also reflect it.
maybe just a part that a public investigation is started every time a citizen poll is not followed or a cabinet-vote is started? like you did in your case (nobody could have forced you to do so at the moment)
We should define the investigation process itself and make that a new section. Then we can reference it for violations. How does it go, from start to finish?
Suspect violates an article of the Constitution.
Suspect is reported to the Investigation thread or a Mod. If to a Mod, the Mod reports the allegation to the Investigation thread. Constitution article allegedly violated must be noted.
Individual investigation thread is opened. Suspect is notified.
Suspect posts a defense.
Citizens post their opinions.
If the discussion is not clearly in favor or against the suspect a poll is held.
If the suspect is found guilty a punishment poll is held (maybe - Eviction/Final Warning/Warning or something like that).

it need not be a violation of the constitution though. some things will start a investigation, like:
* devoicing citizens in the chat
* using cabinet-polls (if not constitutional change)
* overriding any decision taken by citizen polls
the suspect should then open a post in the investigation thread and a cossesponding discussion thread himself (cross-linked). he can state a reason for his action there and citizens can discuss with him........ like you proposed
i just want to state that investigations not only go with constitutional violations.

Overriding a poll is a Constitutional violation and devoicing is specifically noted that it will lead to an investigation. I think investigating every Cabinet Vote would be a bad idea. It would make investigations common and detract from their "aura". There's no need to investigate a vote to adopt province borders, etc.

I think investigations should only happen for violations or actions that specify an investigation will occur.

Originally posted by disorganizer
btw: we should also allow not-binding polls. this should be explicitly stated in the poll description. or we make unbinding default and have the binding polls to be specially taged with a description.
like "INOFFICIAL:what is the winnig goal we want to reach at the moment?"
I agree that non-binding polls are a valuable resource. I think it should be the other way around though. If a Leader posts a poll it should be binding by default unless there's a specific disclaimer that the poll is for information only (unofficial).

ok. so we comply there!
so wee need:
* an article stating what a citizen can do and how he could influence the game, but also his duties. and this article should be the at the beginning of the constitution
* an article stating how investigations work and when they start
* poll-definitions with binding and unbinding polls, so it should be clearly stated in the cons that all polls are binding for the government unless otherwise stated in the description and title of the poll
* it should be clearly stated what cabinet-polls are really for, and in which cases a investigation follows.

we should not make differences between chats and forum there, as those changes are like the chat-rules (IMHO)

Agreed. Now we're gettin' somewhere!

I just got a stack of paperwork dumped on me but can work on this over lunch.

wow. we should propose you for some medal. you ARE fast man!

Here's what I've got. Comments, suggestions, additions, and subtractions requested.

Proposal for Citizens
All people playing the Democracy game are citizens of Phoenatica. Some citizens are elected or appointed to positions with additional duties, responsibilities and powers.
Citizens are encouraged to vote in polls and elections and offer their views and opinions in discussions.
Citizens may start discussion threads and post in all threads, including departmental threads.
Citizens are welcome in the chat room when the game turn is played.
Citizens may vote in Citizen Polls in the chat room to determine game decisions.
Citizens may not post polls that deal with topics specifically under the jurisdiction of an official but may post opinion polls and gameplay related polls.
Citizens may request that an official post a poll related to their area of jurisdiction. If two other citizens agree with the request (motion seconded and carried) the official must post the poll.


Proposal for Investigations
Suspect violates an article of the Constitution.
Suspect is reported to the Investigation thread or a Mod. If reported to a Mod, the Mod reports the allegation to the Investigation thread. The Constitution article allegedly violated must be noted.
The suspect is notified of the charges.
An investigation thread is opened detailing the facts of the alleged violation and history of convictions.
The first reply to this thread is reserved for the suspect’s response to the charges (defense). If the suspect has not posted in 24 hours they lose this reserved spot and anybody can post.
Citizens post their opinions on the charge and whether they think the suspect is guilty of an infraction.
If the discussion is not clearly in favor or against the suspect a poll is held to determine guilt or innocence.
If the suspect is found guilty through the investigation thread or poll, a sentencing poll is held. Possible punishments are eviction from the Demo game, suspension from the Demo game, loss of office, final warning, warning and no punishment.

Proposal for Poll Procedures
Polls posted by officials are considered binding unless they are specifically noted to be informational only in the Title and Body of the poll.
When a discussion thread has led to a poll, the poll should reference back (hyperlink) to the discussion.
The closing date of the poll should be noted in the poll post.

Shaitan, you are seemingly lumping poll procedures in with your Cabinet vote suggestions. They are separate things and should be discussed as such. The poll procedure thread is now buried, but they are now being standardized in a thread covering a different topic. As you are a major poller (is that a word? pollist?...), you should be discussing these procedures out in the open with the rest of the citizens, not under the guise of Cabinet votes. Please stop this and resume discussion of poll procedures in the appropriate thread.

Originally posted by Cyc
Shaitan, you are seemingly lumping poll procedures in with your sub-forum suggestions. They are separate things and should be discussed as such. The poll procedure thread is now buried, but they are now being standardized in a thread covering a different topic. As you are a major poller (is that a word? pollist?...), you should be discussing these procedures out in the open with the rest of the citizens, not under the guise of Cabinet votes. Please stop this and resume discussion of poll procedures in the appropriate thread.
No, they're not getting lumped in. They were just discussed here. The poll portion here isn't meant to be any major change or the final word. They are just things that became aparently necessary while working through the Forum realignment proposal so needed to be addressed here.

These aren't proposed Cabinet Votes, they are proposed Citizen Polls. We've also been discussing them right here, definitely out in the open.

I printed this thread out today and read it over. I have some general comments to add to the discussion.

I can see disorganizer's concerns about citizen's seeing only government people in the constitution. At the same time I think of the US constitution and it is basically about government simply because a constitution is a set of rules for a government! That governmental 'feel' can't be written out of the constitution.

That said, what does the US constitution have that ours doesn't?

A preamble and a bill of rights.

A preamble that summarizes what we're all about here in Phoenatica would be the first thing read in the constitution. It would set the tone for everything that follows.

A bill of rights that simply and clearly spells out what citizens can do may well be what disorganizer is looking for. The first part of Shaitan's proposal is similar to a bill of rights.

A preamble and a bill of rights would be welcome additions to our constitution. I don't think polling and investigatory procedures need be part of the constitution. The latter two subjects are certainly needed and I suggest they be discussed and codifed then ratified by a citizen poll. I would not take the step of a cabinet vote to incorporate them into the constitution. We can make some rules without revising the constitution, can't we (so long as these rules do not conflict with the constitution)?

Donsig - I love the idea of a Constitution that is more like a real Constitution. I think you were the one who suggested a Constitution separate from a "book of laws" or somesuch? That's a great idea too and I'd like to see how others feel about it. I envision the Constitution being the rights of the people and powers of the government and the Laws being the rules how they would all be implemented, plus all of the game mechanics stuff. The Constitution should be hard to change and the Laws relatively easier to change. Laws would have to follow the guidelines/tenets of the Constitution.

This would be a lot of work though and I don't have time to do it right now. In two weeks or so my workload will lighten as my company releases it's latest release of our software. After that I won't have to work ridiculous hours and would have time for a massive work like this.

Unless someone else would like to pick it up and run with it? (hint, hint)

Someone in the Civfanatics chatroom came up with the idea of distinguishing between laws and the constitution. (I can't remember who it was but I think it was either disorganizer or Chiefpaco.)

Codifying laws and retooling the constitution is a big step that needs input from many citizens. Two weeks does not seems to be too long a period to discuss this matter. Since it is a matter that may well impact the next demo game we have to be careful to come up with a system that will not only work now and in the future of this game but in the beginning of a game as well.

it was proposed by me in the tread proposing things for the next game ;-)

but to shaitans post:
im still missing the investigation for chat-related issues and if cabinet-polls are used insted of citizen-polls for major decisions or to override a poll.

i dont understand cycs post though, because it was not shaitan who started these threads and those ideas were brought up in many threads till now. its just we two discussed them in here to a detail never reached in a thread before, but i think you can easily post a entry in the thread where you would like it be discussed to crosslink the threads.

Originally posted by disorganizer
but to shaitans post:
im still missing the investigation for chat-related issues and if cabinet-polls are used insted of citizen-polls for major decisions or to override a poll.

These are already part of the Constitution - accepted in the last Council Vote. In fact, they were just recently updated into the Constitution by the Mods.

i did not find them there. can you post a reference?

Section O, Article 8: Devoicing actions and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls will be investigated in the forum in the Public Investigation Thread.

Section O only takes care of the Chat.
I meant the explicit mentioning of a investigation if cabinet-votes are used insted of citizen votes.

and to the chat-rules in section O: if we have an investigation-section, they should also be mentioned there. redundancy is always there in official documents ;-)

The only place where there's an option to use Cabinet Votes instead of Citizen Polls is in the chat.

yes, but this should be stated explicitly. many leavers thought they could be misused to limit importand decisions to cabinet and not get them to the citizen polls. the constitution leaves this point open, as a cabinet-vote can be used for anything.
so we should state that if a cabinet vote is not used for the intended purpose (constitution, etc.), for example for doing game decisions or overturning citizen polls, an investigation is the result
this will give the government the opportunity to still use them, but they have to lay open why they did so.

I see the problem now. What we need is to complete the definitions of the Council Votes. As the rules stand, a Council Vote can't be used for just anything - only the things that are defined in the Council Vote section. If we add 1 Article to that section and that should solve the problem. The Article to be added would be something like:

Catch-All Vote: The President or DP can call for a "catch-all" or miscellaneous purpose vote. This covers any aspect not defined by a specific Cabinet Vote. A Catch-All vote will automatically trigger an inquiry in the Investigation Thread.

A thread has been opened to discuss the Constitutional Revision propsed by Donsig. LINK (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23593)

Dis - there's no option to use a Cabinet Vote instead of a Citizen Vote in the Forum. That can only happen in the chat turn. Or am I just not understanding your point?

a cabinet-vote can be used to overturn any decision (as i and many others understand the constitution). this would of course lead to a ammendment for not following a poll, but this part nobody seems to realize.
i just wanted to have things stated clearly in the constitution, not so hidden as now (sorry that you get all the hits though)

Proposed poll:

Do you support the addition of a "catch-all" Council Vote? (see description)
[YES]
[NO]
[ABSTAIN]

Catch-All Vote: The President or Designated Player can call for a "catch-all" or miscellaneous purpose vote. This covers any aspect not defined by a specific Cabinet Vote category. A Catch-All vote will automatically trigger an inquiry in the Investigation Thread.

This would complete the definitions for Council Votes. If an additional vote "type" becomes recognizable by usage it can be removed from the catch-all clause and given its own definition and repercussions.

you will get much more hits for this. but its ok with me. if you want to put up the poll, go. but be prepared ;-)