View Full Version : Citizen discussion: Veto of Amendment 1


donsig
Jun 02, 2002, 02:35 PM
I have vetoed the proposed Amendment 1 (turn chat threads).

The Council vote on the amendment is here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23753)

I invite citizen response to and discussion concerning the veto.

My veto message can be found in the thread linked to above but I will reproduce it here:

According to article 2 of section L, this measure has passed the council vote since it has now received six affirmative votes out of a possible eight.

I hereby veto this measure and now set forth my reasons for doing so.

While I am in general agreement with the proposed turn chat threads I do not feel that rules governing said threads should be incorporated into the constitution. The constitution should be reserved for general principles regarding the play and organization of the democracy game. Rules concerning the organization of specific threads should be codified in an entirely different document. Whether this document will be *laws* or *regulations* (or both) is something that must still be worked out. Since the constitution should be a difficult thing to change and the organization of a specific thread should be any easy thing to change this amendment does not belong in the constitution.

As stated earlier I am in general agreement with the principle outlined in this proposed amendment and I do plan to adhere to the proposal as best as I can without restricting the flexibility for improvement that may be needed. I have a few specific reccomendations for improvement:
The threads should be named *Turn chat [starting game year], [real time date]
The first post should include the summary from the previous turn chat and/or a link to the previous turn chat thread.
The last post should contain a link to the next turn chat thread.
the turn chat thread should contain saves (or links to saves) for the initial save used during the turn chat, the end of turn 0, the end of turn 5 and the final save from the turn chat.

These suggestions are mainly meant as additions to what is already in the proposal, with the exception of the saves. Rather than saving over the older saves I think it is best to use the new file upload system. This would leave all inter-turn chat saves available to the public which could be valuable in case of public investigations.

If this proposal was made a part of the constitution then implementing these suggestions or any others for that matter would require citizen discussion, a citizen poll and a council vote. By the time this process would be completed a number of turn chats would already have come and gone. I recommend that this proposal (with the suggested changes) be incorporated into a document of regulations which would be easier to change than the constitution.

disorganizer
Jun 02, 2002, 02:57 PM
1) why didnt you state you complains in the discussion thread?
2) what about the thing which are already in the constitution? there, the posting of the saves etc. is reglemented.
shouldnt we run a 2-way process for the change?
* 1st step with the ammendment to change the constitution (which already passed the cabinet-vote and would be to be implemented now)
* 2nd step with a move to rewrite constitution (as a book of game-principles), a book of law (major ways of how to handle things and how things are punished) and a book of regulations (how things are done and organized)?
this would enable us to incorporate the 2 changes (did every1 in the cabinet oversee the 2nd amendment?!? there is no vote in it!) now (as the cabinet votes should be closed today for both) and start to reorgranize our constitution while already running the two proposals.

to rewrite the constitution will take too long for the implementation, and because many things are regulated in the constitution at the moment we will stop improovements if we wait with everything till the "separation of rules" is completed.

disorganizer
Jun 02, 2002, 03:55 PM
to your proposal with the saves:
we canceled the idea because then we would have 4 file-uploads per turn-chat instead of 2, which will lead to double the forum-filespace-usage. this means 600kb more per chat, which means 1,2mb per week more. this is about 5mb per month more filespace. and remember you are not able to delete from the upload-feature, so the files will be there forever (well, till tf deletes them).

using the forum-upload-feature (not file-upload! the attachment while writing a post!), the forum replaces the files if named the same.

Rain
Jun 02, 2002, 04:03 PM
The amendment as proposed and voted on was already discussed and polled. I see no reason why a veto should have been invoked. This action sets a danderous precedent for overturning duly considered legal changes. While your object in doing so may have some merit the same logic can be applied to all legislation, since it woudl be foolish to presume that any legislation cannot be improved upon. That being the case the due process for implementing these changes was followed and any subsequent changes should follow a similar discussion process. I do not think the intent of existing veto was to overturn legislation which followed such a due process.

donsig
Jun 02, 2002, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by disorganizer
to your proposal with the saves:
we canceled the idea because then we would have 4 file-uploads per turn-chat instead of 2, which will lead to double the forum-filespace-usage. this means 600kb more per chat, which means 1,2mb per week more. this is about 5mb per month more filespace. and remember you are not able to delete from the upload-feature, so the files will be there forever (well, till tf deletes them).

using the forum-upload-feature (not file-upload! the attachment while writing a post!), the forum replaces the files if named the same.

It is my understanding that there is plenty of room on the server that the new upload feature saves to. If we use this feature then we will be taking up less space on the forum server. Perhaps it would be a good idea to hear from the mods on this. I'm working under the impression that 10 MB a month to the new file upload server would be better than 5 MB a month to the forum server.

donsig
Jun 02, 2002, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Rain
I do not think the intent of existing veto was to overturn legislation which followed such a due process.

This statement brings us right to the crux of the matter. I'm not sure what the intent was for putting this into the constitution but it is there now and that is all we have to go by. If rules are to be followed and not ignored then care must be taken in writing them. We've seen changes to the constitution that have proved to be bad ones. The 24 hour notice for turn chats springs to mind. We would do well to look at how we make changes and come up with a better system.

As for the turn chat threads proposal, I have already said that I will adhere to the proposal as best I can even though it is not part of the constitution. We do not have to make every change a part of the constitution. As an analogy I would point out that if in a town where everyone keeps their dogs on a leash as a matter of course, there is no need for a leash law.

donsig
Jun 02, 2002, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by disorganizer
1) why didnt you state you complains in the discussion thread?
2) what about the thing which are already in the constitution? there, the posting of the saves etc. is reglemented.
shouldnt we run a 2-way process for the change?

1) To be honest I got tired of saying we need to slow down the process of rule changing.

2) Yes, we need to weed some things back out of the constitution. I suggest we handle this particular matter first by deciding whether this proposed amendment should be a law or a set of regulations and how the proposal could or couldn't be changed once adopted. Once we do that we can look at the constitution and decide what should be taken out and moved into the realm of laws/regulations.

disorganizer
Jun 03, 2002, 01:17 AM
1) i meant you good ideas for the change itself. we missed them in discussion.
2) so wouldnt it be good to mark this as "book of regulations"-part and nevertheless put it to constitution now as we already have it constitution-ready? we could the start looking thru the cons and just mark the things for the 3 books. a mayor rewriting of most of it though seems necessary, cause the senteces wont fit for the three-book-version

Cyc
Jun 03, 2002, 02:20 AM
The Constitution clearly states the President has the power of veto. Let me say that a different way Ė Itís written in the Constitution that the power of veto is given to the President. OK, that sounds a little better. To me that basically means that Donsig, as elected President has the power of veto. Am I reading this right?

Of course we could have a discussion, letís say under the National Employment Program poll for a couple of days and then run a poll on it and with a quick Cabinet vote we could try to get the Presidential veto removed from the Constitution in about a week or less. Well no, the President would just veto that measure because we already put the veto power in the constitution. Oh, what to do? Iíve got an idea. Why donít we just accept the veto and use this as a starting point for the reconstruction of our nationís Constitution? The President is well within his rights and authority to veto this measure and on a different point should be applauded for attempting to improve our government.

We need to start somewhere and this is a great place to start. The country needs a kick in the pants to alert it that changes in our legislative process are needed and this veto should suffice. If we blow this opportunity, we may never get these problems resolved. I realize there are people that would like to see quick fixes put into the Constitution while they are in charge, but this may not be the best overall solution for Phoenatica or any of the Demogame nations of the future. (And please, that is not a personal attack. That is the nature of a leadership position.) This Demogame forum may be a mainstay for Civfanatics for many years. We are the forefathers that people who will play the game will remember. We need to make every effort to make the game as good as it can get. We owe it to the future generations to slow this process down and work it out until it covers all the different aspects of the game.

Rain Ė If the intent of the existing veto were not to overturn legislation that followed such a due process, how would such legislation get to a point where a veto could be imposed? Should Donsig start vetoing discussions or polls? Having a proposal go through the discussion period and then a poll successfully so that it can be brought up for a Cabinet vote is the only way said proposal can get to a veto.

Dis Ė The turn chat will only get 3 new saves a chat. The 0 turn, turn 5, and the end chat save. Approximately 900K a chat, 1.8 meg a week, 7.2 meg a month using the upload server, and these can be deleted as time goes by. They will remain secure in their original form until then. NO ONE will be able to tamper with them. Not even the President. Using this secure, reusable (as an example, the end chat save from the last chat could be linked to the new turn chat thread) process would only increase total upload size of the game by 50% on a server that is MUCH larger than the forum server. The way that you propose, Dis, the saves could be altered and resaved, they couldnít be used in another thread without taking up just as much space, and the forum server will suffer more quickly than the upload server as the total upload size of the game would be 66% of the new process. Plus uploading the old way, the saves could not be deleted unless you deleted the post, which may or may not make a difference.

Donsig Ė you suggest handling the matter first by deciding whether the proposed amendment should be a law or a set of regs. How about a discussion about what a law is and what a regulation is and how the two differ and how each could or could not be changed. These principles need to be discussed first before we start to apply these guidelines to proposals. I believe now is an excellent place to start, while keeping the veto enforced.

disorganizer
Jun 03, 2002, 02:39 AM
1) well, we could use an empeachment for the purpose of stopping the president from vetoing ;-)
2) i just wanted to point out why this was solved that way (i dont know who brought up this point in discussion, we should re-read it, but someone said it would take too much space to upload the mid-chat saves at all. the conclusion was to upload to forum. deleting files on the upload server does not really delete them, just removes accessability).
3) i just get a little annoyed because these proposals were talked up for about 3 weeks. since noone seems to listen, why do we discuss at all? for 3 weeks, the coresponding threads were up on top of the list because we really produced high traffic (1 post minimum per day). and noone cared. as soon as this got to a vote, even then nobody cared. and suddenly this proposal is vetoed against. this should not be the way to go. if we discuss something, than it should be read. we can talk about voting-ways forever, but if we always get new addiditons on the last minute, we will never get the rules up.

Cyc
Jun 03, 2002, 03:08 AM
Is that why my sub-forum proposals weren't brought up in the polls? Is that why my poll procedures weren't brought up in the polls? because they weren't posted early enough? I'll have to remember to post earlier. I thought I had talked about them for a long time before the polls were drawn up. I know how it feels to be a little annoyed.

disorganizer
Jun 03, 2002, 03:11 AM
Was it my fault you didnt bring them in? Maybe you didnt bring them far enough? (i didnt see a poll yet). Why didnt you start the polls?

Shaitan
Jun 03, 2002, 05:51 AM
I've got mixed emotions. On one hand I'm irritated that all of the discussion, arguing and work that built this amendment has been snuffed. On the other hand, as Donsig said, the principles of the amendment are going to be used. He vetoed the amendment not because he disagreed with the content but because he disagrees with procudural aspects of the game being put into the Constitution.

This is what the Presidential veto is here for. The person we elected to lead Phoenatica saw a problem and had the power to deal with it. I would not support any measure that took this veto power away from the President as it is an important last line of defense for the Constitution. The veto does not give the Pres the power to do whatever he wants, it gives him the power to make sure others don't do whatever they want. That's probably worded badly but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say there.

disorganizer
Jun 03, 2002, 05:56 AM
and thats why i started the investigation for impeachment. to see wheter he still has the support of citizenry.

Cyc
Jun 03, 2002, 10:49 AM
Shaitan, we agree on something....Seriously, that was a very well worded statement that seemed to cover how I feel about it. And I can kinda see your point too Dis, although a little extreme, it does cut to the quick. Hopefully this will blow over quickly and we can get on with the glory of our nation.

chiefpaco
Jun 03, 2002, 10:55 AM
I'm with Shaitan on this matter.

Rain
Jun 03, 2002, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Cyc
Rain Ė If the intent of the existing veto were not to overturn legislation that followed such a due process, how would such legislation get to a point where a veto could be imposed? Should Donsig start vetoing discussions or polls? Having a proposal go through the discussion period and then a poll successfully so that it can be brought up for a Cabinet vote is the only way said proposal can get to a veto.


Categorically i am not in favor of the veto clause period. To address your comment however, i assume the intent was to perhaps to address a situation where a cabinet could vote against the will of the people. The veto could then be used to overturn the unsupported policy. This is only surmise. I have no idea why the clause was instituted and in this discussion the point is irrevelant, since the clause exists and no interpretation of it is provided. As i previously stated I dont think Donsig's actions were ultra vires given the existing language.

Shaitan
Jun 03, 2002, 11:32 AM
I drafted the veto as part of the amendment that gave Council Members the right to call certain Council Votes. The veto was approved but never discussed. The reasons that I included the veto were:
To preserve the Presidential right to call Council Votes. Originally this was the President's sole right. When we gave the right to call the Council to other Council Members, the veto was given to the president so he would still have control of the Council.
To prevent hasty or marginalized legislation. There weren't any requirements on voting or polling procedures or Constitutional Amendments. The Presidential veto was to be used as the last defense of the Constitution.
Giving the power to amend the Constitution to a large group of people required checks and balances against possible abuse. The Presidential veto was to be used to counter a rogue (or simply misguided) Council Member.