View Full Version : splitting the constitution - how can that work?


disorganizer
Jun 03, 2002, 04:43 AM
As we saw from many posts, it will be best for our nation to split the rules to different books. This thread should be used to discuss how this can be organized and what other things we have to think about when implementing this.

The pro/con discussion of splitting the constitution should be spawned to other threads (see below) and kept to minimum in here to avoid clutter.

disorganizer
Jun 03, 2002, 04:43 AM
Citizen discussion: Veto of Amendment 1 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23930)
Demogame Concerns - Citizen discussion encouraged (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23706)
Citizen Discussion : Article 5. Veto Provisions (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23934)

Poll:split the constitution? (informational) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23977)
splitting the constitution - how can that work? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23978)
the "book of regulations" (constitution) - discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23976)
the "book of laws" (constitution) - discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23975)
the "book of principles" (constitution) - discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23974)

disorganizer
Jun 03, 2002, 04:44 AM
difference of the books:
book of principles: hard to change (citizen+cabinet poll)
book of law: easy to change (citizen poll)
book of regulations: easy to change (citizen poll)
maybe the outcome will be that the last two will be one.

ranking of books:
principles->laws->regulations
this means for example a rule in the "book of laws" has to comply to the rules in the "book of principles".

disorganizer
Jun 04, 2002, 05:23 AM
now just to begin:
(noone talked in here, so there really seems to be much interest in this matter!)

* a rule in a higher ranked book must not be violated by a lower ranked book. for example a law must not override a principle
* changes to the principles must be approved by cabinet-poll and majority-citizen poll
* changes to the laws must be approved by a majority citizen poll
* changes to the regulations must be approved by a normal citizen poll

(see book of regulations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23976) for details about the poll-types)

Cyc
Jun 04, 2002, 11:43 AM
I'm not much of a constitution writer, yet. How about if you define the terms rule, priciple, law and regulation. What each term means and why it is in a separate book. Not in an overall blanket statement, but a bonafide definition of each term. One that could be expanded on or modifiedin a way to make it work better with the others. This would be a good place to start and hopefully we will get some citizen response.

Shaitan
Jun 04, 2002, 12:29 PM
My take on it is more like the US Constitution and laws (sorry I keep referring to this but it's the one I know best).

Preamble - non-binding declaratory statement. Introduction to the Constitution. Sets the tone of the document.

Constitution - comprised of principles. These are broad stroke and sometimes ambiguous statements. They are designed to be interpreted. Very difficult to change.

Amendments - principles added after the completed Constitution is in use.

Laws - rules of the game. These are (relatively) easy to change but are restricted. Laws may not be created that contradict the principles of the Constitution. A change in the Constitution can invalidate huge sections of the law code.

Standards - techniques and procedures. These are the way things are or should be done. They may not contradict the Laws or the Constitution but carry no penalty for violation.

Cyc
Jun 04, 2002, 01:19 PM
Shaitan:
Standards - techniques and procedures. These are the way things are or should be done. They may not contradict the Laws or the Constitution but carry no penalty for violation.

So far I like it, (after more input from citizenry), but the standards part troubles me. If it must not contradict the Laws or Constitution, then there should be a penalty, such as invalidation. If there is no penalty, why adhere to the laws? I could purposely counter the laws and laugh in the face of the constitution while doing one of the procedures outlined. I don't get it. Shouldn't we just save the ink?

donsig
Jun 07, 2002, 08:50 PM
No 'penalty' Cyc, but I assume that standards that violate a law would be declared invalid just as a law that violates the constitution is declared void. The question becomes, who judges the legality of regulations and the constitutionality of laws...

disorganizer
Jun 08, 2002, 12:16 AM
they will not be allowed to be added or will be removed if noticed later. as in normal laws and regulations. every government has a constitution. the laws are not to conflict with it, otherwise they are declined. all government offices make their rules (as well as courthouses), and they also have to comply to law and constitution, otherwise declined

Cyc
Jun 08, 2002, 02:02 AM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Shaitan's paragraph (the quote in my post) or both Donsig's and Disorganizer's. I'll clarify my statement.
I'm not talking about if the procedures outlined in the book of Standards violate or are in conflict of a law or other part of this Constitution package, I'm talking about a proposal or poll or whatever, being drawn up by a citizen that is outlined in the procedure, yet not adhering to those standards being declared invalid because of that fact. The way Shaitan's paragraph reads to me, the procedures are outlined in the Book of Standards, but NO penalty is applied for not adhering to them. And the only penalty I'm talking about is the action would not be validated if it didn't.

Shaitan
Jun 08, 2002, 08:20 AM
Essentially correct, Cyc. There is no criminal penalty for violating a standard. In the draft that I will post on Monday the maximum penalty for violating standards is a warning. Procedures carried out that violate the standards would not be valid. Continuous violations of a standard could indicate that it's not workable or that it needs to be given the authority of law. If a single citizen continuously violates standards, the common cause (peers) should take care of the problem.

donsig
Jun 08, 2002, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Cyc
I'm talking about a proposal or poll or whatever, being drawn up by a citizen that is outlined in the procedure, yet not adhering to those standards being declared invalid because of that fact. The way Shaitan's paragraph reads to me, the procedures are outlined in the Book of Standards, but NO penalty is applied for not adhering to them. And the only penalty I'm talking about is the action would not be validated if it didn't.

This seems tied directly to the poll standards question. The validation Cyc is talking about seems to me to be the same thing as making a poll binding. I see the idea here to be to safeguard against someone pushing through an unpopular measure. The theory is that for measures to be valid or polls to be binding they must live up to these well thought out standards. If they don't follow the standards they can be safely ignored or over-ridden (in theory).

The trouble I see is that popular policies would also be invalid or non-binding if they do not meet the standards! Because of this I am very wary of adding more rules.

disorganizer
Jun 08, 2002, 12:35 PM
what about just stating that if the poll is not using the specifications of the book of regulations, it is invalid. and this will of course be in the book of law, so it can not be changed by a simple poll.

donsig
Jun 08, 2002, 12:46 PM
If a poll is not valid does than mean we cannot follow the results of the poll? I see many problems with invalidating polls. If the government implements a policy measure that happened to be approved by a poll that was not valid then impeachment charges could possibly be brought against the government officials in question. A poll that does not live up to our standards may well still accurately depict popular opinion.
I think the best we can do with polling procedures is to allow government officials to justify their actions if they have a valid poll that backs the actions.

disorganizer
Jun 08, 2002, 12:50 PM
if a valid poll from some time before (even if a year old) is there covering the same question, the old poll MUST be followed if the new one is invalid.
if the poll is invalid, the info can but need not be used.
if a poll-result MUST be there for continuing the game, then we will have to wait for a valid poll, even if this may mean canceling a turn-chat already scheduled.
it makes no sense making rules we dont need to follow.

Cyc
Jun 08, 2002, 02:18 PM
The validation of an action, poll, proposal, whatever would only be implemented in official use. If a poll, let's say, doesn't fall within the parameters of validation, it can't be made into law, it can't be used for impeachment procedings, any action taken in a chat according to it's results can be reversed. All validation means is that the item will stand in any official judgement or action taken by the government, if the item's validity is questioned. If someone says during a chat to use a poll's results in an action taken by you, and you look the poll over and say "This isn't a valid poll", you won't be required to use it (if your analysis is correct). That doesn't mean you can't use the results of the poll, it just means that if you were correct, and the poll isn't valid, then that poll can't be used in your defense of the action (if required). Validation is not a huge issue here. It simply states whether an item or action will stand the test of government scrutiny.

Shaitan
Jun 08, 2002, 06:10 PM
What they said. Disorganizer and Cyc nailed my thoughts to a T.

donsig
Jun 09, 2002, 10:46 AM
I do not agree with disorganizer's idea of halting the game to wait for a valid poll. that leaves open the strategy of calling for polls during turn chat and pretty much throws spot votes during chat out the window.
I'm not sure I agree with Cyc here either. If validation of a poll is not important then why do we need standards? I think validation is important. I see the logic presented by both dis and Cyc but I'm not sure my original doubts have been answered. These doubts are on a fundamental level and I'll try again to give an example of what worries me.
Say the designated player (DP) comes across a point in the game where he or she feels citizen input is needed. The turn instructions don't cover the situation. Someone at the chat brings up a poll that upon examination is not valid. The DP follows the results of the poll anyway. I understand the DP can't use the poll in his or her defense but could the poll be used against the DP? My fear is that the Dp will end up getting crucified because an invalid poll happens to exist.
I guess I'm trying to say that non-validated polls can't be used as defense and also can't be used as evidence against someone.

Cyc
Jun 09, 2002, 11:56 AM
I think! I mean to say here, exactly Donsig. Polls that do not fall withing the parameters of validation are simply informative. They may not be used in an official manner.
In your last example, if the DP (Designated Player) used an invalid poll, but that poll showed an inkling of the will of the citizens, why would that poll be used against them? (Even if that were possible.) If invalid Polls cannot be used in government procedings for one's defense, they would not be allow for one's prosecution. Sorry if it seems like I'm repeating myself here.
I thoroughly agree the validation is important, Donsig. I'm the one who brought it up. It's the mortar that will hold most of the arguements in this Constitutional debate together. I never said it wasn't an important issue. If it was taken that way, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was that the concept of validation was an easy one to achieve. The definition of validation (usable in any form for government actions, laws, whatever) is easy to communicate. The specifics of validation, by means of regs and laws, which will come later through discussion, won't be as easy.

One last thing is I hope you are keeping validation of polls completely separate from the definition of that of binding polls. While binding polls must be valid, valid polls may not be binding. Binding polls may be passed into law by the cabinet. Keep in mind that Shaitan is passing or has passed a constitutional amendment that states that any poll created by a leader is binding (if valid). Binding and validation are two totally different concepts.

P.S. I think we're holding the same conversation in two different threads. Let's move this conversation about polls to Eklektikos' thread for the Polling Commision, and leave this thread for the Constitutional matters (although they may intertwine).

donsig
Jun 09, 2002, 12:11 PM
How can an amendment be passed to make a valid poll binding when we haven't decided what *valid* means? *Binding* is a whole another question and I think it was my asking what *binding* meant that got us to this point of drawing a distinction between valid and binding. I do see how there can be a difference in the two concepts but have we gotten any closer to being able to use polls to decipher what it is that citizens want done?

A concrete example is looming. We are entering the industrial age and the demands on our workers a re increasing. Who has the authority to decide what our workers should be working on? Our domestic leader has now issued instructions for our workers. A governor has requested the use of at least one worker. To the best of my knowledge the constitution is silent on who controls workers. It could be argued that they fall under the jurisdiction of the domestic department or the designated player. The turn chat is four hours away and there is no mechanism for answering this question.

Cyc
Jun 09, 2002, 12:22 PM
Donsig, the amendment I was referring to wasn't about making a valid poll binding. It was about any poll created by a Leader being binding. I just threw the validation part in parethesis because it made sense to me for that paragraph.

Your concrete example doesn't exist without a poll, did you create one? Now let's move poll discussions to the Polling Commision.

donsig
Jun 09, 2002, 12:37 PM
I have been trying to carry on this discussion in two difficult threads and I'm not sure if the example I'm using belongs in the polling standards thread or this one. In the example I gave there is only four hours to go before the decision is needed. My understanding is that this would not be enough time to complete a valid poll. This thread is about splitting the constitution into constitution/laws/regulations/standards. The need for quick decisions must be taken into account both in our polling standards and in how we formulate the *rules* for playing the demo game.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by my concrete example doesn't exist without a poll, did you create one?". I have not made a poll about this. There has been no discussion on the issue, hence a valid poll cannot be started yet, correct? Even if a valid poll could be started would we have the results before tonight's turn chat? No. There are cases where polling will not help and in those cases our constitution/laws/regulations must step in to guide us in the way decisions should be made.

Cyc
Jun 09, 2002, 01:09 PM
Basically on the Constitution/laws/regs, I agree with you again. As far as Eyrei's letter goes, let me quote a bit of it first:

Finally, the republic is in dire need of workers to build railroads. I request that each province provide two worker units within the next ten turns if at all possible to aid in this task. Chondote will be queued to build four workers in succession to begin construction of national railway stretching from Thebes to PDX, and then south to Fox's Nest.

Key word in the paragraph is request. He did not post an order or demand compliance. He wrote a letter to the Gov'nas asking if they would help with the railway system. In his last post to the letter, he stated that the new workers would stay in the Province they were created in. I don't see the need for a poll in this situation. There was a quick turn around time for a decision by the governors requested in the letter (within 10 turns) which means in one turn chat. This wasn't really the proper way for the Domestic Leader to handle his plan, but as I stated before, this was only a request. (Which, as a Governor, I originally complied with.)

And you are right about there not being enough time to approach this situation with a valid poll. And you are right that the laws/regs should cover these kinds of situations. And you are right about these conversations belonging in both threads.

So I guess I'll keep on replying.

eyrei
Jun 09, 2002, 01:28 PM
I am not sure it is possible to handle workers in any way than the way I did in my letter. Had there been objections to the plan I proposed, a poll would have needed to be posted. We have enough issues to poll on without adding mundane tasks such as worker allocation to the polls forum. I suggest that if there is no more than one objection to a proposal from the domestic leader or one of the governors regarding worker tasks, that we simply let it go without a poll. Had one of the governors objected or refused to supply the workers, I had no intention of forcing the issue.

Cyc
Jun 09, 2002, 01:41 PM
Bingo, next topic.

donsig
Jun 09, 2002, 01:50 PM
Guys, I was not referring to eyrei's call for governor's to build workers but to his instructions in the turn chat thread for what the workers should do. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes the domestic leader to make decisions regarding workers. In the past the domestic leader has not posted instructions for workers. Since I do not see workers as being under the jurisdiction of the domestic leader I am faced with a dilemma and our demo game *rules* do not help me to find a way out.

Here is the post I'm reffering to. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=319179#post319179)

eyrei
Jun 09, 2002, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by donsig
Guys, I was not referring to eyrei's call for governor's to build workers but to his instructions in the turn chat thread for what the workers should do. There is nothing in the constitution that authorizes the domestic leader to make decisions regarding workers. In the past the domestic leader has not posted instructions for workers. Since I do not see workers as being under the jurisdiction of the domestic leader I am faced with a dilemma and our demo game *rules* do not help me to find a way out.

Here is the post I'm reffering to. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=319179#post319179)

Those are all instructions for cities that I govern, except for PDX, which was decided by a poll. I don't see any alternative to letting the governor's control workers that would make sense.

Cyc
Jun 09, 2002, 02:09 PM
Ah, I see your point, Donsig. And it works. What do you propose?

Sorry I was out in left field when you wanted me on first, but at least I was in the ballpark...

Cyc
Jun 09, 2002, 02:11 PM
Eyrei, can you post a link to the polls you talk about?

eyrei
Jun 09, 2002, 02:26 PM
Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24185) it is. This poll is also an example of why I don't like the polls sub-forum. Almost noone voted, probably because they didn't know it was there.

donsig
Jun 09, 2002, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by eyrei
Those are all instructions for cities that I govern, except for PDX, which was decided by a poll. I don't see any alternative to letting the governor's control workers that would make sense.

I think it only makes sense to let the designated player (DP) control the workers just as he or she controls the military forces during war. It is the DP who sees what is going on each turn.
Now I'm not suggesting the DP be able to over-turn poll results and I am all in favor of polls to direct our government. Makes our job easier.:)

I think eyrei is arguing that if cities in his province make the worker then he should be allowed to control that worker. I would agree that makes sense as long as the worker stays in the province that produced it. It seems to me that once the workers start crossing provincial borders they are now working on national projects. Whether such national projects are under the jurisdiction of the designated player or domestic leader would have to be determined. In any case, as it stands, decisions regarding workers are not given to the president, the domestic leader nor to the governors by the constitution.

donsig
Jun 09, 2002, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by eyrei
Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24185) it is. This poll is also an example of why I don't like the polls sub-forum. Almost noone voted, probably because they didn't know it was there.

Unfortunately we don't have polling standards in place yet. So, as we consider how splitting the constitution can work we should certainly follow the case of these workers with an eye towards the proper handling of a situation like this. What mechanisms will we put in place for deciding if the issue should be resolved by a regulation, a law or a constitutional amendment? What do we do in the absence of rules for a given situation?

Cyc
Jun 09, 2002, 02:47 PM
All good points, Donsig.

Eyrei, thank you for the link. I would say the low turnout for that poll was caused by the fact that you started two polls at the same time with almost the same heading, and the poll in question was one of them. The "Poll Sub-Forum" heading on the poll sub-forum sub-forum should pretty much alert our citizens that there is now a new sub-forum for our polls and if people quit posting polls in the citizen's sub-forum, it would help a lot.

disorganizer
Jun 09, 2002, 05:03 PM
how long was the poll up?
was is sticky?
was there an abstain option? No (which may have prevented some from voting).

The result could also mean that 30-13=17 citizens did not care about the outgoing of the poll. This is a perfect example why abstain is needed in the polls.
If it was up for less than 2-3 days this could also be the reason, or unstickyness when much was going on.

Immortal
Jun 09, 2002, 11:06 PM
dis is correct for this poll, it was:

Not made sticky
Moved around between (3?) different forums before landing a home.
Lack of an abstain button, I wanted to abstain on this poll, there was no option, so I didn't vote on this poll.

I think it only makes sense to let the designated player (DP) control the workers just as he or she controls the military forces during war. It is the DP who sees what is going on each turn.

/me waves goodbye to democracy as it flies out the window

The military advisor controls the military during war, at least it did during our last war, for all I know our "debates" have put that into the presidents territory

Shaitan
Jun 10, 2002, 06:56 AM
Those shots will either be a salute or a firing squad. Can't wait to see which. ;)

Here is the first draft of the Proposal for Constitution C (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/ConstitutionCv1-0.zip). Constitution A was the original and B was the revision we implemented at the start of Term 2. This file is version 1.0 and is in MS Word format. If anybody needs this in text only, let me know. If there's no demand for text only I don't want to take the time to go through and convert it.

This document includes everything in our current Constitution plus the several rule revisions that passed in popular polls at the end of Term 2 but did not get put to the Council for amendment votes. It also includes poll procedures being talked about right now.

There is one other massively glaring change. The At-Large Council positions are gone and have been replaced by a judiciary of 2 positions. The Judge Advocate is the prosecutor and the Public Defendant is the defense. They still vote the citizen proxy in Council Votes but are otherwise separated from the Constitution. This change was badly needed as we are instituting rules and regulations, laws, crimes and punishments. I had to add a judiciary branch to make this work. Essentially, the At-Large Council lost the ability to change the Constitution and gained the ability to enforce it.

Please remember as you read this proposed Constitution that every aspect of this document is open for debate. Nothing is set in stone. It is a vehicle and starting point for discussion that will hopefully end with a sexy, workable set of rules.

There are bunchles of threads on the Constitution right now. I put this proposal in this thread as it seemed like the most appropriate one and also is getting activity while the others are floundering.

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Immortal
/me waves goodbye to democracy as it flies out the window

The military advisor controls the military during war, at least it did during our last war, for all I know our "debates" have put that into the presidents territory

The miltary department directed the Domino War only as far as outlining general startegies (i.e., take New York then Washington then Philadelphia - or what ever it was). Military also set objectives, such as pillage the American's iron. They did not and could not have given detailed instructions for the movement of each unit for ten turns - that had to be left up to the designated player (DP). The military controls our military forces and the DP would have to follow any spefics moves that the General could supply. That's a constitutional power of the military leader.

Workers are not mentioned in the constitution. That's is why I brought the point up in this thread. We must decide first, how workers will be controlled (who will have the constitutional authority to organize and order the workers) and second, we must decide how to handle unforeseen things like this (who has any powers not mentioned in the constitution).

In any event Immortal I am trying to protect our democracy not usurp it. :)

eyrei
Jun 10, 2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Immortal
dis is correct for this poll, it was:

Not made sticky
Moved around between (3?) different forums before landing a home.
Lack of an abstain button, I wanted to abstain on this poll, there was no option, so I didn't vote on this poll.






I have to disagree with some of this, as the poll I opened about why we play the demo game got a greater response and it was neither sticky nor in the polls forum. I think that the citizens forum is the proper place for citizen polls. Maybe the lack of an abstain button had an effect, but I hope not too great of one. If you don't mind my asking, why would you have abstained? It seemed an issue that should be important to every citizen.

Shaitan
Jun 10, 2002, 10:04 AM
I'd propose that governors control the general use of the workers produced in their provinces. The Domestic Leader would control the general use of federal employees (built in the Capital province, foreign workers, workers borrowed from provinces). Instruction could be as detailed or vague as the official wants. The Domestic Leader would also get to use idle workers.

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 11:08 AM
I haven't looked at the proposed constitution yet so I'm not sure if workers are mentioned or not. I forsee problems in having governors control workers (the workers would be bound to each province and it would be very difficult for the designated player (DP) to track this as our provincial borders do not show up in the game). I oppose putting workers under the jurisdiction of the domestic leader as that position is already the most powerful as it is. Traditionally workers have been under the authority of the DP and it should remain that way. Just so everyone can seperate Presidential powers from donsig's powers I would like to state here that I will not be running for re-election as President. It is my hope to retire from politics after this term and pursue book contracts. :)

Shaitan
Jun 10, 2002, 11:26 AM
Retire? I'll have to add a draft provision to the Constitution... ;)

No, there's nothing in there about workers. It wouldn't be too hard to keep track of them. Province A has 5 workers, assign a list of tasks and when one is done the worker that is freed goes to the next task on the list. The Pres/DP could be responsible for idle workers instead of the Domestic Leader.

I think it would encourage governors to build more workers if they had some say in what the workers do once they are built.

eyrei
Jun 10, 2002, 11:34 AM
I think that should a governor desire to control the workers in his/her province or build workers for a particular purpose, he/she should be free to do so. However, some governors may not desire this level of management, and if workers do not have a purpose designated by a governor, they should be under the control of the designated player. I also oppose giving control of workers to the domestic leader, as, personally, I think I have enough work to do.

Workers can be told to simply improve the area around a city, and then the player will not even have to deal with them until they have completed that task. They can also be told to build a road or rail from one point to another, as the ones being produced in Chondote should be instructed to do once they get to Thebes.

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by eyrei
I think that should a governor desire to control the workers in his/her province or build workers for a particular purpose, he/she should be free to do so. However, some governors may not desire this level of management, and if workers do not have a purpose designated by a governor, they should be under the control of the designated player. I also oppose giving control of workers to the domestic leader, as, personally, I think I have enough work to do.

Workers can be told to simply improve the area around a city, and then the player will not even have to deal with them until they have completed that task. They can also be told to build a road or rail from one point to another, as the ones being produced in Chondote should be instructed to do once they get to Thebes.

I cannot imagine being the designated player (DP) and trying to keep track of which workers belong to which province or where one province begins and another ends. I suggest you all try doing this in a solo game and see if you can manage to keep workers tied to provinces. Problems I see also include the idle workers. Could they be moved into another province? If so, would they still *belong* to the original governor or not? What about foreign workers that are not built by any province? Can a governor authorize his or her workers to build a road or railroad into another province?

Traditionally, workers have been under the authority of the DP and that power should be specified in the constitution. What workers actually do would (of course) be subject to the wishes of our citizens. Anyone could petition or poll for certain projects to be done.

Now, what about powers not specifically granted in the constitution?

:)

eyrei
Jun 10, 2002, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by donsig


I cannot imagine being the designated player (DP) and trying to keep track of which workers belong to which province or where one province begins and another ends. I suggest you all try doing this in a solo game and see if you can manage to keep workers tied to provinces. Problems I see also include the idle workers. Could they be moved into another province? If so, would they still *belong* to the original governor or not? What about foreign workers that are not built by any province? Can a governor authorize his or her workers to build a road or railroad into another province?

Traditionally, workers have been under the authority of the DP and that power should be specified in the constitution. What workers actually do would (of course) be subject to the wishes of our citizens. Anyone could petition or poll for certain projects to be done.

Now, what about powers not specifically granted in the constitution?

:)

While I agree it would be ridiculous to expect the designated player to keep track of which province a worker belongs to, I think that, at such a point as a worker or group of workers is within a governors province, and do not have an assigned task, he/she should be allowed to post what those workers should do. Then they could be set to that task. If the task is just to improve one or two tiles, the player would have to keep track of them, but if it was to build a road or rail somewhere, or improve all tiles around a city, these instructions can be given and then the next time they are free (having completed their task), the player can do with them as he/she sees fit. Governors are responsible for the micromanagement of their provinces, if we do not allow them some control over workers, they cannot do their job.

Shaitan
Jun 10, 2002, 12:51 PM
What a conundrum. How do we give the governors some control over the development of their lands without driving the DP into a fit of insanity? A compromise might be for the governors to specify the provincial improvements they want and the DP responsible for the actual implementation. The DP would need to weigh provincial needs against federal needs at times.

Originally posted by donsig
Now, what about powers not specifically granted in the constitution?
We'll need to address them individually as they come up (like the workers here). For powers that haven't been defined I'd say assign them to the Pres/DP until they've been discussed and put where we want them.

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Shaitan
We'll need to address them individually as they come up (like the workers here). For powers that haven't been defined I'd say assign them to the Pres/DP until they've been discussed and put where we want them.

I agree with this but it will take time to hash out these things on an individual basis. While they are being hashed out we must live with our choice (whatever it will be) for this interim authority. Since we don't yet know what issues might pop up this is a big choice we are making.

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by eyrei


While I agree it would be ridiculous to expect the designated player to keep track of which province a worker belongs to, I think that, at such a point as a worker or group of workers is within a governors province, and do not have an assigned task, he/she should be allowed to post what those workers should do. ... Governors are responsible for the micromanagement of their provinces, if we do not allow them some control over workers, they cannot do their job.

This is an inefficient way of getting projects done. There could be idle workers near a province but not inside it that could be appropriated by the governor of a province for a less important use. In this case it would be better for the workers to cross provincial borders and work on the higher priority job. There is also the question of jobs the domestic leader neeeds done for wonder building. Then there is the question of building a rail network that really falls under no specified jurisdiction but is certainly national in character. It would be much better IMHO to have authority over the workers centralized. There is nothing to prevent governors or the domestic leader from asking for certain jobs to be done. Any citizen (governors and domestic leader included) could always poll the citizens to get their projects made a high priority.

Cyc
Jun 10, 2002, 03:21 PM
Shaitan touched on what I believe is the appropriate response to this problem. Let the Governors request work to be done by workers (where ever the workers happen to be or who ever the are). I submitted a request in the turn instruction thread for the worker by Cyrus to stop mining and clear jungle, as Cyrus had no available food. No food, no growth. I could see no reason for the DP to put a worker to mining right next to a city that had no growth. So I made the request. It was ignored and the worker went the other way to build road for the upcoming railway. It should not have been this way. The railway is important, that's why there was already 7 or so workers building rail a short distance away (one of which a city in my province produced for this project).
I suggest we get to work on subjects more important than worker allocation (and I know at this point someone will say "but I'm talking about issues not addressed in the Constitution", but fine, that is what this thread is for. Talk about the issues of the Constitution, not who has the God-given right to direct workers and how difficult it can be. Let it go for now. A simple agreement that the DP has basic control of the workers and must try to answer formal requests in the turn instruction thread by Governors or the Leaders, if possible.
Personally, I was not happy that our Leaders were willing to stunt the growth of the capital city of Kashmir, just to build road.

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 03:30 PM
I will reply to this in the Kashmir thread. :)

I have started a discussion of NEP priorities. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24546)

Immortal
Jun 10, 2002, 03:38 PM
To quote Shaitan directly:

Oh no, my friend. They are very different. Abstain means that they've seen the poll and do not view any choice as worthy. Big difference between abstaining and not voting at all. Plus, the abstain option lets you track the total number of poll participants.

Donsig: I didn't say "waves goodbye to democracy as Donsig throws it out the window" certainly this is not my opinion of you. Rather I think the idea would set a dangerous precident for future presidents to remove power from the citizens, which is the opposite of what both you and I want.

Shaitan
Jun 10, 2002, 03:43 PM
Donsig's suggestion is workable and is definitely the easiest to implement. I just wish there was a way to reward/encourage governors to take the time and production in building workers.

On a semi-related note, if a governor wants a new city in his province, can he build a settler and put it where he wants it? Or does the settler go to the common cause as they have been previously?

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Shaitan
On a semi-related note, if a governor wants a new city in his province, can he build a settler and put it where he wants it? Or does the settler go to the common cause as they have been previously?

I think the current constitution gives *settler placement* to the domestic leader and traditionally that is who has placed our cities. Of course the domestic leader must bend to the will of the citizens (or face being ejected from office) so a governor could conceiveably commence discussion and then produce a valid and binding poll concerning a specific settler and its location. Another, even simpler solution (one that I think we overlook many times) would be for the governor and domestic leader to come to an agreement about a specific settler and its destination. Of course it would be best if they also had at least some indication that the citizens approve their plan!

donsig
Jun 10, 2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Immortal
Donsig: I didn't say "waves goodbye to democracy as Donsig throws it out the window" certainly this is not my opinion of you. Rather I think the idea would set a dangerous precident for future presidents to remove power from the citizens, which is the opposite of what both you and I want.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the designated player be immune to the will of the citizens. He or she should always bend to the will of the people if it is known. I'm only concerned with those times when our citizen's wishes are not known. In those cases we must know who has the proper (constitutional) authority to make decisions.

Immortal
Jun 10, 2002, 04:37 PM
I see, thank you for clarifying that :goodjob:

disorganizer
Jun 11, 2002, 04:27 AM
workers:
i would prefer the governers producing a worker to controll them. if domestic department need one of the provincial workers, the province lends a worker to the department, then for the domestic department uses it and after that gives the worker back to the province.
we could even think about giving money from the budget of domestic department to the province for lenting a worker.

war:
the president normally is the highest military commander.
but another idea:
what about giving the right of play to the military department during war? they could directly controll movement of units when necessary.´
but is this really necessary? is the exact movement of the forces so importand?

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 06:15 AM
what about giving the right of play to the military department during war? they could directly controll movement of units when necessary.´The Military Leader tops the Chain of Command when the economy in Mobilized (becomes the default Designated Player). This represents something akin to martial law - the country as a whole is committed to the war effort and civilian concerns are put to the back burner.
but is this really necessary? is the exact movement of the forces so importand?I don't think that individual troop movement requires the attention of the Military Leader. The DP handles all of the minutiae as directed by every other official, the Mil Leader shouldn't be any different.

donsig
Jun 11, 2002, 07:20 AM
I like the introduction. It seems as though laws must first be rules and amendments must first be laws. Is this so and is that they way we want it to be?

I would strike the last sentence from the preamble and change the last word of the (new) last sentence from *Phoenatica* to *Phoenatics*.

Article D: I think we are going too far in stripping the constitution here. The areas of authority of the leader and governor positions should be outlined in the constitution. The authority of our officials must be anchored in the constitution. Without a constitutional basis then laws or even standards could be implemented that drastically change the duties of government officials.

Article E: I think we should consider basing terms on number of game turns played rather than the real calender. A term could be (for example) 80 turns long with the election process begining after 60 turns have been played. There is a turn calculator that can be used to easily determine what game year it will be 60 or 80 (or any number of) turns from any given year. Using the turn calculator it would be easy to know at what game year to start elections and the next term.

Article F: Are deputies considered to be in a leadership position? This article is vague but is it too vague? Does *No person shall hold multiple government positions simultaneously.* get the point across better? Or is this article not meant to change our current practice of allowing a person to be a leader and deputy at the same time?

Article G: Is the majority based on the census mentioned in article I? I must confess that I haven't been through all the laws and standards of "C" and thus don't yet understand the workings of the judiciary and legistlative branches. However, I think amendments should need 3/4 majorities of citizens to pass. Polls for amendments could be left open indefinately. I think laws should take a majority of citizens to pass. Standards should be made by government officials. As always these officials should endeavor to determine what it is the citizens want and then implement it but I do not think they should be made to gather a majority just to pass a standard.

Article I: Again, I suggest we consider basing terms on a fixed number of game turns played rather than a calender month. What is the quorum used for?

Articles J & K: No comment yet since I'm not sure of the mechanics of the legislature. Though it does seem to me that the council or cabinet departments are part of the executive branch while the citizens are the legislative branch.

Article N: No one, not even the all powerful moderators should be able to make laws contrary to the constitution. Unity cannot be imposed on the citizenry if they are divided (unless of course one faction is eliminated). Perhaps article N should read *The constitution, laws and standards of Phoenatica can never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such constitutional amendments, laws or standards* or something along those lines.

Well, now I must go over the code of laws.:)

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 08:05 AM
Comments and reply to Donsig's comments (Couldn't quote for clarity as it ended up too many characters. Follow allong as best you can. ;)

Introduction: Yup, that's the plan. This gives a good testing ground for changes and forces reaffirmation of citizen approval as the rules gain more authority.
Preamble: I agree.
Article D: I see what you mean here. The division of the legislature is defined in Article J but specifics were omitted. I'll look into this.
Article E: My concern here is that terms could be very short in the beginning of the game and very long in the middle and end of the game. A world war in the industrial or modern age can make individual turns last for an hour or more.
Article F: "Leader" and "leadership" are used consistently to indicate department leaders and the President. This article is not meant to prevent a person from serving in multiple deputy positions. We'll need a set of definitions to clarify terminology like this.
Article G: Yes, the majority mentioned here is of the census in the next article. I'll reverse the two so the census is defined first. We couldn't keep an amendment poll open indefinitely as there has to be a set time that it closes so the results can be used. Our standards define the common day to day life of the citizens of Phoenatica (how the Forum is used, etc) so I definitely want these to be passed by citizens. Government officials can propose standards too, so items needed for governing effectively are still in the purview of the officials. We've also got an established history of public approval for these. Taking that away would be a bad idea, IMHO.
Articles J & K: This is a problem that actually makes it very difficult to work on the "C". Our Cabinet functions as both the legislature and the real executive branch. That is, the officials make both policies and laws. I have been working on a plan to fix this but it might be pretty unpopular (see next post).
Article N: I agree.

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 08:13 AM
I propose that we remove the Legislative powers from the Cabinet. Right now, the Cabinet functions as both the executives of the country as well as the legislators. I think that we should have an actual legislative branch. We already have the bodies to fill the positions - our duly elected governors.

This change would do several things. First, it would give us a division between the lawmakers and policy makers. This mimics the setup in every succesful industrialized nation. Second, it evens out the power disparity between our elected officials. Cabinet members have a whole lot o' power, the gov's don't.

In the beginning of the game there would be the 2 citizen proxy votes and the Domestic Leader as the legislature (remember that the Dom Leader is the gov of the capital province). As the nation grows and more provinces are defined, the legislature grows as well.

What thinkest thou?

disorganizer
Jun 11, 2002, 08:42 AM
1) i did not undersand much of it (maybe cause im ill? or is it just too complicated)
2) the "book of regulations" was meant as detailing the laws. as so, for example, a law could be that the turn chat will be done in a posted schedule and that this schedule has to be posted regularly, and the regulation says that the schedule has to be posted till sunday and a minimum of 24h before the first chat.
as such, propoting arcticles from regulations->law is nonsense. promotion from law-constitution would be good, but should be more restricted, as we dont want to clutter constitution
3) the president decides what to do with a leader? no! citizenry decides.
4) you must destinguish between "citizen census" and "active citizen census" more in the writing. some time you talk of census, some of "active citizen census". please use the second all the time, because the other one is our census of the registered citizens
5) add:
constitution:
* a citizen must register in the registry. all forum users not registered there are no citizens.
law:
* a citizen leaving the game should delete the entries in his post and state there why he left
* citizens should edit their posts in the registry if some of the facts stated there change
6) i would add as first article:
all power of decision in the game should lie withing the powers of citizenry, not within the powers of any individual.

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by disorganizer
1) i did not undersand much of it (maybe cause im ill? or is it just too complicated)It has become complicated. Are there any particular parts that need clarification?
2) the "book of regulations" was meant as detailing the laws. as so, for example, a law could be that the turn chat will be done in a posted schedule and that this schedule has to be posted regularly, and the regulation says that the schedule has to be posted till sunday and a minimum of 24h before the first chat.
as such, propoting arcticles from regulations->law is nonsense. promotion from law-constitution would be good, but should be more restricted, as we dont want to clutter constitutionThe Book will also be the first step for new rules and regulations. A sort of testing ground to make sure they work before writing them into law.
3) the president decides what to do with a leader? no! citizenry decides.This was taken from Duck's rules. I agree that something as vital as a leader should be used according to a citizen poll.
4) you must destinguish between "citizen census" and "active citizen census" more in the writing. some time you talk of census, some of "active citizen census". please use the second all the time, because the other one is our census of the registered citizensGood point!
5) add:
constitution:
* a citizen must register in the registry. all forum users not registered there are no citizens.
law:
* a citizen leaving the game should delete the entries in his post and state there why he left
* citizens should edit their posts in the registry if some of the facts stated there change
Added citizen registry to the Constitution.
Added #2 and #3 to the standards.
6) i would add as first article:
all power of decision in the game should lie withing the powers of citizenry, not within the powers of any individual.
The Preamble covers this about as strongly as we can realistically do. "We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have a voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the Phoenatics."

Cyc
Jun 11, 2002, 09:04 AM
Well, I might as well jot down my notes, too:

I would like to see the title of the Code of Conduct Section changed to the Code of Standards. When discussing this Section, I for one would refer to it as the COC, which would mnake a lot of people think I was talking about the Chain of Command.

I believe I would take Article I out of the Constitution and make it a Law.

In Article K, you talk about a quorum being made up of the two citizen votes and half the council. That's good, 5 of 8 votes make a quorum. Do you keep this standard of a majority (as opposed to one half) throughout this document? You also need to clarify exactly what this quorum is for.

In the Code of Laws, Citizen's Rights,Point 5, sub- b. Please take out "or discussion". It's a judgement call in the laws and in a council vote for the citizens.

Judicial branch, Point 2, sub-a1. Just the Public Defender must vote in accordance with the citizens? Please take out discussions.

Council Votes, All Points. Each Point calls for a simple majority. This is a simple majority of who? In each type of Vote? Needs clarification.

Code of Conduct (COC), Section O, Forum Organization. Do you think the Phoenatica National Art Museum should be stickitized?

Section P. What method of posting should be used when posting the save. The forum server or the file server?

Section T, Point 1a. Council quorum of 4 participants means the council without the Judicial Members? If all 8 are included, the quorum should be 5. I strongly believe this.

Point 2, sub- b1. All polls have a minimum duration of 24 hours? Section L, Point 8 sub- a3 states 48.

Point 5, sub- b1. The word "or" should be changed to "and". This point is debateable, maybe we just need more discussion on it. Also, I'd like to see a blurb in there stating that the action or change, direction, whatever can be changed again or back to original by popular citizen vote.

Section U, Investigations, Point 7. The Judge Advocate will post a trial if just one peron requests it? Even if that person is the only one in 48 hours?

OK. I'm done for now. We seem to have a lot of discussion here.

disorganizer
Jun 11, 2002, 09:17 AM
Well, maybe its because my brain just blows my head right now, but i even dont understand this article of the constitution right now, shaitan. I for now blame it on illness but i dont see my point in the article ;-).

To the "regulations":
we should use this as it was intended. As i think about it, the propoting procedure is not right at all. We tried to destinguish betweed rudimentary rules, rules and standards for the rules to work with the 3 books. with the propotion-scheme, we break with this idea.
i would propose something else:
1) a law is introduced or changed:
it gets a status of "unapproved". when unapproved, any law can be changed or deleted with a vote complying to the book of regulations (simple citizen poll).
at the beginning of the next term, after a minimum of 2 weeks, a simple citizen poll is posted. if accepted, the law becomes "approved" and complies to the polling-rules of the book of laws thereafter, if not accepted it is automatically deleted (maybe even a 4 option poll would be good: approve, unapprove, delete and abstain, where the second leaves the law unapproved for 1 more term, up to a maximum of 3 terms).

this can also be used for the constitution, but there instead of the simple citizen polls the polling rule for changes in the book of law apply.

this would bring in the same effect as "promotion of articles", but wont temper with the idea of the "3 books", with 1 for the plain ideals and principles, 1 for the more detailed laws (still no dates, times etc. in there) and 1 for the detailed ways to handle laws (see chat schedule example)

disorganizer
Jun 11, 2002, 09:20 AM
btw:
i think we should spawn the proposal to a new thread.
1st post:
updated version of the proposal
rest:
discussion

donsig
Jun 11, 2002, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Shaitan
Introduction: Yup, that's the plan. This gives a good testing ground for changes and forces reaffirmation of citizen approval as the rules gain more authority.
Article E: My concern here is that terms could be very short in the beginning of the game and very long in the middle and end of the game. A world war in the industrial or modern age can make individual turns last for an hour or more.
Article G: Yes, the majority mentioned here is of the census in the next article. I'll reverse the two so the census is defined first. We couldn't keep an amendment poll open indefinitely as there has to be a set time that it closes so the results can be used. Our standards define the common day to day life of the citizens of Phoenatica (how the Forum is used, etc) so I definitely want these to be passed by citizens. Government officials can propose standards too, so items needed for governing effectively are still in the purview of the officials. We've also got an established history of public approval for these. Taking that away would be a bad idea, IMHO.
Articles J & K: This is a problem that actually makes it very difficult to work on the "C". Our Cabinet functions as both the legislature and the real executive branch. That is, the officials make both policies and laws. I have been working on a plan to fix this but it might be pretty unpopular (see next post).


Introduction: I'm not aginst this plan per se, but think that we should be able to go directly to a law or an amendment if there is a consensus that such is what is really needed.

Article E: I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps we need a combination of the two. I think I'm looking more towards the start of a game than our current one here. The beginning is the make or break part of a Civ game and the game turns go faster as you indicate. Perhaps it is best to leave the term on a monthly basis. My concerns could be remedied by a standard or law that limits the number of game turns that can be played in a term.

Article G: So, what is the relationship between majority and quorum? I don't see why an amendment poll can't be open ended timewise. At the very least it should have a long (at least a month) period to be open. When an amendment poll is opened, the census will be in place and we will know how many votes are needed to pass the amendment. Once the threshold is reached it passes.
I have to continue to disagree majority polls being needed to pass standards. Perhaps we need a further division betwen standards and regulations. Regulations would pertain only to technical aspects of running the government (like turn chat schedule posting) and would be made by government officials. It just seems to me that there are some things that need to be done quickly and the process of discussion and getting a majority vote in a poll is very time consuming especially since we hardly ever get a majority of our citizens to even vote in polls, let alone vote on the same option!

Articles J & K: I think the reason the cabinet and president act as both executive and legislature is that they are are supposed to be communicating with the citizens so the citizens wishes are met. I think we should consider the citizens themsleves to be our legislature. Cabinet votes should remain in place as a means of over-riding build queues and departmental decisions. BTW, the inclusion of a judicial branch is great!

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 09:47 AM
Response to Cyc's comments/suggestions

Code of Conduct -> Code of StandardsGood point. Changed it.

Article I out of Constitution and into Law. Already did (Section B of the Code of Laws). Just forgot to take it out of the "C". Thanks for the catch.

Article K, Quorum I meant this to be half (that's what was approved in our poll results). After changing the wording a dozen times I think I confused myself. Half should be consistent throughout the document. Added that the quorum is for polling.

Code of Laws, Citizen's Rights,Point 5, sub- b.I agree. "Discussion" shouldn't be there.

Judicial branch, Point 2, sub-a1. Good catch. Had the powers listed separately first then combined the common ones but missed that. Fixed it and took out "discussion".

Council Votes, All Points. Got it. Good catch.

Code of Conduct (COC), Section O, Forum Organization. Absolutely yes. Ongoing threads like the Cultural Art Museum and the Newspaper should be stickied. What would a good description of these threads be? They don't fit under Citizen Groups.

Section P. File server. Should have said 1 post also, instead of 3.

Section T, Point 1a. Council quorum of 4 participants includes the judiciary. This confusion stemmed from the one you caught above in the number of respondents to constitute a quorum.

Point 2, sub- b1. Section L, Point 8 sub- a3 states 48 but that's for Council votes. the 24 hour rule for citizen polls came from our discussions on poll reform.

Point 5, sub- b1. Used "or" because many of the items that a spot poll will be used for won't have an expiration. That is, they'll be instant effects like promoting a unit, making a trade deal, etc. I added the requested blurb.

Section U, Investigations, Point 7. Not my idea of fair justice either but it's what came out of the discussions for investigations.

donsig
Jun 11, 2002, 09:54 AM
I like the idea of letting (EDIT) presidents have authority over leaders. It is great foresight to include leaders in the mix though I think all powers of governemnt officials should be in the constitution. I would qualify the authority over leaders to be in line with all other governmental powers, i.e., the president must make his or her decision regarding leaders based on the wishes of the citizens. If there is a tie the president would have tie breaking authority. If there is no valid, binding poll in effect about leaders then the president would at least have authority to do something with the leader. BTW, getting a leader ranks with war as a good reason to halt a turn chat (though stopping turn chats should be standards).

donsig
Jun 11, 2002, 10:07 AM
I need a print out of the document with the changes that have already been made. Have you updated the posted file Shaitan?

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by disorganizer
To the "regulations":
we should use this as it was intended. As i think about it, the propoting procedure is not right at all. We tried to destinguish betweed rudimentary rules, rules and standards for the rules to work with the 3 books. with the propotion-scheme, we break with this idea.
The object is to be able to try out and perfect new rules, regs, and laws before they become part of the Code of Laws. No more fiasco's like the 24 hours to post the schedule rule.

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by donsig
Introduction: I'm not aginst this plan per se, but think that we should be able to go directly to a law or an amendment if there is a consensus that such is what is really needed.It still can. There's no restriction on that, just that the normal course would be staggered development.
Article E: I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps we need a combination of the two. I think I'm looking more towards the start of a game than our current one here. The beginning is the make or break part of a Civ game and the game turns go faster as you indicate. Perhaps it is best to leave the term on a monthly basis. My concerns could be remedied by a standard or law that limits the number of game turns that can be played in a term.Could you start a new thread for this discussion? We can plug it into the new "C" if a change is warranted but it isn't critical to the new revision.
Article G: So, what is the relationship between majority and quorum? I don't see why an amendment poll can't be open ended timewise. At the very least it should have a long (at least a month) period to be open. When an amendment poll is opened, the census will be in place and we will know how many votes are needed to pass the amendment. Once the threshold is reached it passes.
I have to continue to disagree majority polls being needed to pass standards. Perhaps we need a further division betwen standards and regulations. Regulations would pertain only to technical aspects of running the government (like turn chat schedule posting) and would be made by government officials. It just seems to me that there are some things that need to be done quickly and the process of discussion and getting a majority vote in a poll is very time consuming especially since we hardly ever get a majority of our citizens to even vote in polls, let alone vote on the same option!
The majority referred to is a majority of the quorum, not a majority of all citizens. The quorum is half of the active, voting citizens. Getting a majority of the quorum to approve means about a quarter of the active citizens vote for the measure. We'll have to agree to disagree on citizen envolvement in the standards. We may need to poll for this?
Articles J & K: I think the reason the cabinet and president act as both executive and legislature is that they are are supposed to be communicating with the citizens so the citizens wishes are met. I think we should consider the citizens themsleves to be our legislature. Cabinet votes should remain in place as a means of over-riding build queues and departmental decisions. BTW, the inclusion of a judicial branch is great! [/B]That makes sense, but if the citizens are the legislature then they need to be able to make laws and change the constitution.

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by donsig
I need a print out of the document with the changes that have already been made. Have you updated the posted file Shaitan? Here it is. (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/ConstitutionCv1-1.zip)

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 11:49 AM
The various versions of the working copies can all be downloaded from the first post of the At-Large Council thread. I'll relink that each time an edited version is posted.

donsig
Jun 11, 2002, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Shaitan
The majority referred to is a majority of the quorum, not a majority of all citizens. The quorum is half of the active, voting citizens. Getting a majority of the quorum to approve means about a quarter of the active citizens vote for the measure. We'll have to agree to disagree on citizen envolvement in the standards. We may need to poll for this?

It is difficult for me to reply here since I haven't been through all the laws and standards yet and haven't seen the changes made so far, but I will try. If article G is reffering to a majority of the quorum and a 2/3 majority of the quorum then I really disagree. If the census said we have 48 citizens then 24 would form a quorum, 13 could pass laws and 16 could amend the constitution. That's a little over 25% and 33% respectively. That is scary especially since the powers of the government are in the laws section! These powers should be in the constitution and that document should be difficult to change. If we have 48 citizens then 32 should agree to any amendment for it to pass. Laws could be based on a 2/3 majority of the quorum while standards can pass with a majority of the quorum.

Could you start a new thread for this discussion? We can plug it into the new "C" if a change is warranted but it isn't critical to the new revision.

My concerns regarding a limit on the number of turns played in a term is moot in our game I think since we have slowed. It is more relevant to the next demo game (should our constitution carry over). When we get around to discussing ideas for the next game I'll inject this idea there.

That makes sense, but if the citizens are the legislature then they need to be able to make laws and change the constitution.

Yes, Yes, Yes! We are basing these changes on a vote from the citizens anyway. All that is missing is their ability to directly initiate the process.

BTW - Thanks for the new copy Shaitan!:goodjob:

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 12:12 PM
Okay, let me try to sum what I think is the overall proposal (correct me if I fubar):
The citizens are the legislature.
Laws and Amendments originate with the citizenry (which is, in effect, everybody who plays the game so officials can still do this as well).
Standards are set by the Council (which is actually the executive branch).

That could be workable but it's a pretty radical departure from business as usual. I'm not opposed to it as I think it would give more power to the people and seems to balance well (just opposite from what I was thinking). Anybody else care to comment?

If article G is reffering to a majority of the quorum and a 2/3 majority of the quorum then I really disagree. If the census said we have 48 citizens then 24 would form a quorum, 13 could pass laws and 16 could amend the constitution. That's a little over 25% and 33% respectively. That is scary especially since the powers of the government are in the laws section! These powers should be in the constitution and that document should be difficult to change. If we have 48 citizens then 32 should agree to any amendment for it to pass. Laws could be based on a 2/3 majority of the quorum while standards can pass with a majority of the quorum.The problem is low participation. We had over 50 voters in the presidential election. We regularly have between 20 and 25 votes on most polls. Don't think of the entire citizenry when figuring what percentage of the players are making the decisions. Think of the active citizenry, as these are the ones who are making the decisions. Of a group of 25 people, are you comfortable that 13 could make a binding decision for all 25?

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 12:16 PM
Ignore the last part of my last post. I totally missed your point.

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by donsig
If article G is reffering to a majority of the quorum and a 2/3 majority of the quorum then I really disagree. If the census said we have 48 citizens then 24 would form a quorum, 13 could pass laws and 16 could amend the constitution. That's a little over 25% and 33% respectively. That is scary especially since the powers of the government are in the laws section! These powers should be in the constitution and that document should be difficult to change. If we have 48 citizens then 32 should agree to any amendment for it to pass. Laws could be based on a 2/3 majority of the quorum while standards can pass with a majority of the quorum.
Okay, let me try again. ;)

Quorums work statistically. Of a pool of 50 people, a segment of 25 people will generally come to the same consensus as all 50. If there are 50 active citizens and a quorum of 25 then a measure can pass with 25 respondents and only 13 yes votes. It's not 13 people making the rule though, it's 25. Statistically, it would be the same result if all 50 voted.

disorganizer
Jun 11, 2002, 12:52 PM
donsig: i cant believe it! we agree on a thing ;-)
shaitan:
the 3 book proposal was NOT thought as for ripening the laws, but for distinguishing between easy to change and not-so-easy to change rules.
if you continue to read my post above, i proposed a solution to your point, to which you said nothing ;-) it would nevertheless have exactly the same effect: making new laws and articles of the constitution easy to change.

now another thing:
one of our thread held the proposal of having 3 kinds of polls:
1) a simple citizen poll
simple majority for yes (2 yes, 1 no, 15 abstain would accept)
2) a majority citizen poll
majority of total votes needed (11 yes, 1 no and 4 abstain would accept, 2 yes, 1 no, 15 abstain would not).
3) cabinet poll
absolute majority of cabinet positions have to vote yes.

with these 3 kinds of polls (of course, in addition to that the quorum rule will be needed). we should define 3 poll-types to handle the 3 books. we could also combine them, like constitutional changes need 2) then 3). law changes need 2), regulation changes need 1).

another thing:
polling times less than 48 hours will lead to low participation (historical knowledge). during war, all polls with only 24h duration participated 8-11 votes, as all other got around 20 votes. this lead to decisions to be taken which were not in the sense of the majority of citizens.

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 12:58 PM
The 24 hour poll time is a minimum allowable. The poster can always choose more time. The quorum requirement will make sure that low participation polls won't approve decisions of a minority grouping.

I'll respond to the rest later, just don't have time right now. (sorry)

disorganizer
Jun 11, 2002, 01:02 PM
maybe we should then implement a "standard discussion" and "standard poll" time of 48hours
in addition to the minimum timesb

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 01:11 PM
2) a majority citizen poll
majority of total votes needed (11 yes, 1 no and 4 abstain would accept, 2 yes, 1 no, 15 abstain would not).
This can't work as it effectively removes the abstain option. The same results will be obtained if you use the options of YES, NO, and OTHER NO.

Re: standard times. Excellent idea. I was working on a set of "best practices" and that included running polls for a minimum of 48 hours and extending this to 72 if it hits a weekend (as attendance drops on the weekends). Wasn't sure if that should be in the standards though...

disorganizer
Jun 11, 2002, 01:17 PM
it would not be "other no". it would still be "i dont care". but absolute majority means 50% of all votes casted must be there. its much harder to achieve this that the normal majority, so this would fit the laws-book.

Shaitan
Jun 11, 2002, 01:27 PM
The label might say "Abstain" or "I don't care" but the effect is "NO". If we use this system then honest labeling requires that we drop the Abstain option and go with a straight Yes/No.

donsig
Jun 11, 2002, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Shaitan

Okay, let me try again. ;)

Quorums work statistically. Of a pool of 50 people, a segment of 25 people will generally come to the same consensus as all 50. If there are 50 active citizens and a quorum of 25 then a measure can pass with 25 respondents and only 13 yes votes. It's not 13 people making the rule though, it's 25. Statistically, it would be the same result if all 50 voted.

I'm sticking with disorganizer on this one. The main reason for splitting the constitution is to make it difficult for constitutional amendments to pass. Passing a constitutional amendment should be on par with choosing a president and should be based on a comparable amount of votes. I say we get 34 people voting yes (out of 50) to pass an amendment. Remember the presidential veto is being dropped. Getting 17 votes out of a pool of 50 on a strictly yes/no question is not difficult at all. I still say there's no reason to put a time limit on amendment polls. When it comes time to post the amendment poll we will know how many votes are needed to pass it. Once that thresh hold is reached the amendment passes.
Out of the pool of 50 it would take 34 to pass an amendment, 17 for a law and 13 for a standard according to my suggestion above. I still haven't looked at the new version so I'm not sure what spread you are suggesting Shaitan.

I'll try to get to the new version soon. I've actually had to work today and I'm not used to that anymore.:(

Cyc
Jun 11, 2002, 07:38 PM
I've read version 1.1 and like it a lot better. It flows better and is less self-contridictory for me. As I've stated in the Polling Standards Comission thread, I believe the definitions of valid and invalid need to be changed. The definitions posted don't capture the full meaning of the words. They lead one to believe that the words mean what is actually just the outer shell of the word. With as much discussion as we've had on these words, I think a deeper, lengthier definition is called for.

Shaitan
Jun 12, 2002, 05:39 AM
So are you guys suggesting that we use a quorum of the active citizens for law polls and a quorum of all citizens for amendment polls?

I don't have a problem with forcing a majority show of support for constitutional changes, I just have a problem with presenting a misleading option on the poll. YES/NO/ABSTAIN is not an honest poll when ABSTAIN has the same result as NO. If we did this then we need to specify that the poll will be YES/NO with no ABSTAIN option.

Cyc - please comment on new definitions:

Invalid – A poll that has not met all of the poll standards (duration, participation, format). This poll’s results cannot be used to justify policies or decisions.

Valid – A poll that has met all of the poll standards (duration, participation, format). This poll’s results are official.

Shaitan
Jun 12, 2002, 05:45 AM
FYI: Our voter pool currently stands at 24 active citizens.

Cyc
Jun 12, 2002, 06:18 AM
Much better, Shaitan. Please allow me to add to each definition an ending piece.

Invalid - "or used in any official capacity."
Valid - "and may be used in any official capacity"

Also, a master wordsmith such as yourself surely must realize that abstain or "other" can pull votes away from or add to either a yes or no situation. You say, Shaitan, that an abstain is the same as a "NO". But if you vote abstain in the following poll, it is the same as a "YES".

"Unless a simple majority of "NO" votes are collected below, we will be attacking the Chinese next turn chat."
YES - 9 votes

NO - 8 votes

ABSTAIN - 2 votes

This may be a poor example, but I'm niether a wordsmith nor did I have enough time to think of a good example. But you see my point. It can go either way depending on the wording. Abstain is niether here nor there. It is only useful in record-keeping matters. It does definitely not need this much attention. We DO need to look closely at polls written by wordsmiths though...

disorganizer
Jun 12, 2002, 06:24 AM
i didnt mean to force us to use the definitions though. just my opinion shaitan;-)

the only thing we should definitely do 3 different kinds of poll, 1 VERY hard one (i even thing harder than choosing a presindent, since elections are simple votes) for the principles, a middle one for the laws and a very easy one for the regulations.
with the approoved/unapproved status of a law/principle proposal this would make the principles VERY fixed. as being this, they should be very vague also (like bill of rights or things like this in other constitutions).
then they dont have to be changed at all during the game. and should not, since they represent the game principles.
laws represent the ruleset, so this should also not be easy to change.
regulations is only the "howto" of implementing the laws (like the regulations books to interpret laws which judges use). they can easily be changed.
this does not prevent a law being propoted to a principle later (per request) or things like that. it just ensures we dont mix the sense of the 3 books.
(donsig: again one opinion with me.... scary!)

disorganizer
Jun 12, 2002, 06:25 AM
we should also think about wheter it makes sense to use multiple-choice elections. i will post a informational poll to this soon. i post a link in here then.

Cyc
Jun 12, 2002, 06:50 AM
Hey Dis. Feeling better? A couple of things I want to say here.

1. A Constitution does not have to be vague. In fact it's basically the opposite. It's very explicite in its descriptions and the parameters it lays out to address a situation. But the words are so well chosen that the basic intent can be used to cover a wide area of different topics. That's the reason our Constitution has remained intact and we've only added amendments to it. Please don't draw up an intentionally vague document because that's what you think Constitutions are supposed to be. They are well written, detailed, multi-faceted documents with an aura of greatness that lends to interpretation.

2. Please tell me what propoted means. At first I thought promoted....well,..maybe. Then proposed....mmm, maybe not...
proponent? no. I give up. Clue me in.

And one more thing. The multi-vote polls will be abused by some and not used by alot. The last one we had was very strange, in my opinion. Too many votes, not enough voters.

Shaitan
Jun 12, 2002, 06:57 AM
Cyc
I added the ending pieces to the definitions.
Yes, depending on the wording of the poll the abstain option in a majority required poll could work either way. My point is that it will always work as either YES or NO, never as ABSTAIN so should not be presented as an option. I am very against ABSTAIN being in this type of poll because it is very misleading. When people see ABSTAIN they vote it in order to show participation without modifying the results of the poll.

Instead of 3 different types of polls, how about if we use 3 different quorums? The quorum for a Constitutional amendment could be 3/4 of the Presidential returns (around 35, or 150% of the active citizens). The quorum for a law change could be 3/4 of the active citizens (around 16). The quorum for a standard change could be 1/2 of the active citizens (around 12). Alternately, get rid of the census of active citizens and use just the presidential returns (3/4 for amendments, 1/2 for laws, 1/4 for standards makes 35, 26, 13 for the 3 quorums). This has the strong advantage of keeping things simple.

Shaitan
Jun 12, 2002, 07:02 AM
Multi-choice polls are new here so there's bound to be some confusion before people catch on to what they're good for. They're the perfect vehicle for elections though as they will elect the candidate that the populace is most comfortable with every time.

Shaitan
Jun 12, 2002, 07:09 AM
We've got a couple of items that sort of fell by the wayside as we got into discussion on the quorums and poll styles. Please share your ideas on these:
Who controls workers?
Who has default command of items not detailed in the rules?
Who decides what to do with leaders?
Other sticky threads (Cultural Art Museum, Newspaper, Awards). We need a category name for these.
Citizens initiating votes on procedures, laws.
My thoughts are: The President/DP
The President
The people, via polls. The polls would be the responsibility of the Pres.
No idea. I'm drawing a blank here.
I say no, but without great conviction. I like the idea but I think it's a huge can of worms that is better left unopened.

disorganizer
Jun 12, 2002, 07:10 AM
btw: the poll is up now in the poll subforum. just to have the link in the clipboard right now and no time...

Cyc
Jun 12, 2002, 07:15 AM
Thank you, Shaitan, for adding the end pieces.
I think we should take the ABSTAIN discussion out of here and put it in the Polling Standards Comission thread, at least for a while. I'd like to here what Eklektikos has to say about it, as well as others.
And I think that last bit is what Dis is talking about. Personally, I like both. Depending on when the change poll is initiated, it would use the end of month Presidential count, orrr use the census count that is done on let's say the 12th of every month.

Cyc
Jun 12, 2002, 07:29 AM
Quickly, on yer post #93 above, I agree with yer thoughts on the first three, basically.
#4 - Do we need a category? or would they just be floating, independent stickies? If you want a category name...Public Works?
#5 - The big one. Of course, citizens could run as many non-binding, informational polls as they please about changes. As far as getting a binding poll initiated, they should approach a Leader with a strong informational poll indicating support for the change.

I'm going to check out the poll Dis started and then split for awhile.

Shaitan
Jun 12, 2002, 08:22 AM
I have a family emergency and will most likely be unable to contribute to the discussion until after the weekend. Here's the latest update. (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/ConstitutionCv1-2.zip) Please continue working things out.

disorganizer
Jun 12, 2002, 01:58 PM
having citizens starting info-polls is also a good way of getting new and fresh ideas into politics. this is what our rl-governments have problems with, and why they really dont like the internet.
we have more possibilities electronically than normal polling in rl.
we could get a benefit from it, if we get it organized right.

another idea for the polls:
we could try to force icon-marking. lets say:
the exclamation mark sign (like in this post)
for ALL official polls and discussion threads
the question mark sign
all informational polls must have this sign.
list sign (the first in the list)
all official informational threads have this sign (like newspaper, history, census)
bulb sign
all citizen group-threads must have this sign.
other threads
can have any sign they like, but must NOT have any of the above mentioned.

violators wil be prosecuted!

Cyc
Jun 13, 2002, 02:28 AM
Dis, as much as I like yer enthusiasm, I wish you would post yer ideas on polling in the Polling Standards Commission thread. That way, as they are discussed there, if this thread needs polling standards to help make a decision, we know we can go to the PSG and find them.

disorganizer
Jun 13, 2002, 03:05 AM
cyc:
i just answered another post though but ok.

from this point on:
all POLLING related posts please redirect to polling standards commission

all others:
?

Rain
Jun 15, 2002, 09:16 AM
I developed this for something else but as it seems relevant to this discussion i thought i would post it here. I think it establishes some desired principles and might be suitable as a over riding statement once further devleoped. If nothing else i think it should serve as guide for those attempting to rework the constitution. Anyway food for thought...

It seems to me that the streams of thought on citizen representation essentially divide into

1) all issues whould be decided by citizen polls
2) issues should be decided by citizen polls when feasible
3) the cabinet acts as a proxy for the citizens

Given that 1) while ideal is never fully compatible with playability and (3) denies any role for the citizenry, the pragamatic result is (2) with the cabinet acting as proxy when (1) is not feasible.

Objectively we should strive toward (1) whenever possible. The difficulty develops in defining "feasibilty" and who determines this.
Since an appeal to the citizenry is not by defintion immediately available then the goal should be to establish the broadest base of support for the decision in keeping with the spirit of (1). Therefore such decisions should be made by cabinet vote which is a broader basis than the decision of any one executive member and that cabnet vote should to the degree possible be influenced by what evidence (if any) is available regarding citizen opinion.

Richard III
Jun 15, 2002, 09:32 AM
My God! The bureaucratization! I'm glad I didn't become a citizen after all!

Rain
Jun 15, 2002, 09:56 AM
******************
Point 1 Right to Assemble.
b Political Parties are not permitted. A political party is a group that promotes one or more candidates based on their affiliation rather than their politics
******************

I don't see the distinction between affiliation and politics. A political party promotes its candidates based on their politics - that is the basis of their affiliation by definition.

******************
Point 3 Right to Free Speech
a Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever they are warranted.
b Citizens may post their comments in chats wherever they are warranted
******************

Since warranted implies that they are guaranteed this right somewhere else is that the case? It might be simpler to state this as except where explicitly prohibited by law etc

***********************
Section C The Executive Branch
Point 6 The President makes decisions on what to do with Great Leaders.
Point 7 The President can veto a Legislative Council Vote.
***********************

I a accordance with the principles i have stated in my previous post - the president should have not have either of these rights.

In fact if i recall the debate that lead to this exercise - it was acknowledged that (7) wuld not be required if the constituton was revised.

*************************
Point 4 Department Leaders share several powers and responsibilities, regardless of department
f Call Legislative and Override Council Votes.
****************************
Again in keeping with the principles mentioned before dept leaders should have no right of override.

****************************
Point 5 Some departmental powers and responsibilities overlap. If overlap should cause the creation of non-complementary plans, departmental precedence will be determined by rank in the Chain of Command
****************************

This shoudl be decided by cabinet vote it gives excessive power via the coc and thereby reduces citizen input in any action.

********************************************
Re Mil LEader
f When the economy is mobilized for war, becomes the defacto President, supplanting the President in the Chain of Command
****************************************
Again this is needs to be examined. It may be appropriate for the mil leader to assume some presidential activites but i think it is inappropriate to displace the president. Further it is not clear what the chain of command is in such a case. Where does the president move to for example.

The entire leadership section would be better if it was presetned in terms of leader of dept x proposes action xxx instead of decides action xxx. This more accurately reflects the principles i stated: thus a dept head proposes an action or series of actions for cabinet vote.

Will get to more of the document later...

Cyc
Jun 15, 2002, 11:32 AM
Good stuff, Rain. Let me go through it again.

disorganizer
Jun 15, 2002, 02:57 PM
@rain: one problem: a cabinet poll might take longer than a citizen poll
a citizen poll seems to reach the quorum rules after 2-3 days, cabinet sometimes not after 5 days, since cabinet polls are dependant on 8 specific people, while citizen polls are only needing an average number of votes.

so 2) will be easier to achieve when using citizen polls for all issues, plus when a chat it there all not-stoppable decisions (like popup-events) can be decided by citizen spot-votes. the cabinet vote is not needed at all (maybe just as a ratification-barricade for rule-changes) for decision making.
this would almost be 1), with the except of what we can impossibly get with 1), the pre-turn events.

for the rest of the discussion:
maybe less is more here. if we make less rules, the game will get simpler.

Rain
Jun 15, 2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by disorganizer
@rain: one problem: a cabinet poll might take longer than a citizen poll
a citizen poll seems to reach the quorum rules after 2-3 days, cabinet sometimes not after 5 days, since cabinet polls are dependant on 8 specific people, while citizen polls are only needing an average number of votes.

so 2) will be easier to achieve when using citizen polls for all issues, plus when a chat it there all not-stoppable decisions (like popup-events) can be decided by citizen spot-votes. the cabinet vote is not needed at all (maybe just as a ratification-barricade for rule-changes) for decision making.
this would almost be 1), with the except of what we can impossibly get with 1), the pre-turn events.

for the rest of the discussion:
maybe less is more here. if we make less rules, the game will get simpler.

Regarding your last comment first, I agree. I was simply addressing the document as presented. I don't think i added to it.

With respect to your second comment i dont see how the citizens can be polled on all issues as they arise in a turn. At some point there has to be a cutoff or the games becomes unplayable. Where this cutoff is also something that is inherently difficult to define. This is where the cabinet acts as proxy both in detemrining the resolution of non-citizen polled issues in turn and in decidng which issues to take to the citizenry from the turn (utilizing what custom, precedent and available info on citizen opinion exists).

With regard to the cabinet i was thinking in terms of in-game decisisions via chat, not polling in the forums. If you can poll the cabinet in the forums as you point out, you can equally poll the citizens.

donsig
Jun 17, 2002, 07:18 AM
Now that Shaitan is back and we have some input from Rain I hope we can return to this discussion.

While I like the idea of splitting the consitution into three books I think the constitution itself should be able to stand alone and I propose that we concentrate on the constitution itself with a goal of getting the new one in place by the start of term 4. We can hammer out the laws and regulations in term 4.

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Rain
Right to Assemble.
I don't see the distinction between affiliation and politics. A political party promotes its candidates based on their politics - that is the basis of their affiliation by definition.
I think you have more faith in politics than I do. ;)
Generally speaking, a political party promotes a candidate because of the candidate's affiliation to the party, not because of the candidate's actual politics. In other words, it doesn't matter if the candidate is the best person for the job, it only matters that the candidate is a member of the party. Here's a real world example: In the last senatorial election in New York, Hillary Clinton was supported by the Democratic party against Rick Lazio, a Republican. Their actual political stances were almost identical despite their party affiliations. Rick had a long history of cooperation with the movers and shakers in NYC and upstate New York. He was an incumbent congressman of New York. Hillary had no affiliation in the state. Given that their politics were so similar and Rick was in a better position to help the state, shouldn't the Democratic party have supported him? Of course not, as the political views and qualifications of the candidates is not important in party politics, only the party affiliation.
Right to Free Speech
Since warranted implies that they are guaranteed this right somewhere else is that the case? It might be simpler to state this as except where explicitly prohibited by law etc
Perhaps I had a poor word choice. I used warrant in its meaning of "justification for an action". Perhaps "appropriate" would be better? We want to steer away from prohibitive statements and use inclusive ones.
The Executive Branch
I a accordance with the principles i have stated in my previous post - the president should have not have either of these rights.

In fact if i recall the debate that lead to this exercise - it was acknowledged that (7) wuld not be required if the constituton was revised.
Somebody needs to be ultimately responsible for leaders. This still has to be done according to the will of the citizens, of course. It could be put under the Domestic Department if there are objections to it being a province of the presidency.

I couldn't find a concensus on the veto so I left it in. I added a veto override as that was a concern mentioned by several people.
Department Leaders
Again in keeping with the principles mentioned before dept leaders should have no right of override.
The override vote is only to override a presidential veto.

This shoudl be decided by cabinet vote it gives excessive power via the coc and thereby reduces citizen input in any action.
The citizens input into the individual leader's instructions. The COC and right of placement determined by it simply break ties between contradictory leadership plans.
Re Mil LEader
Again this is needs to be examined. It may be appropriate for the mil leader to assume some presidential activites but i think it is inappropriate to displace the president. Further it is not clear what the chain of command is in such a case. Where does the president move to for example.
The only presidential activity with a military aspect is play of the game.

The military leader tops the chain of command in this case. The rest of the chain is not affected so the President is number two, under the military leader.
The entire leadership section would be better if it was presetned in terms of leader of dept x proposes action xxx instead of decides action xxx. This more accurately reflects the principles i stated: thus a dept head proposes an action or series of actions for cabinet vote.
I see your point. "Decides" sounds arbitrary. How about "organizes and confirms" or something similar?

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by donsig
Now that Shaitan is back and we have some input from Rain I hope we can return to this discussion.

While I like the idea of splitting the consitution into three books I think the constitution itself should be able to stand alone and I propose that we concentrate on the constitution itself with a goal of getting the new one in place by the start of term 4. We can hammer out the laws and regulations in term 4.
This sounds like a good plan to me. We have the advantage of seeing the proposed laws and standards at the same time so we can see the effect of constitutional changes on the proposals immediately.

I think we need to answer 3 questions before we are ready to submit the constitution:
Will this constitution define and defend the basic concepts of the game?
Will this constitution allow the game to progress at an acceptable rate? i.e. is it restrictive enough to allow efficient game play?
Will this constitution allow the players of the game to enjoy themselves? i.e. is it permissive enough to allow participation?
Those aren't in any particular order as #3 is obviously the most important.

Rain
Jun 17, 2002, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Shaitan

I think you have more faith in politics than I do. ;)
Generally speaking, a political party promotes a candidate because of the candidate's affiliation to the party, not because of the candidate's actual politics. In other words, it doesn't matter if the candidate is the best person for the job, it only matters that the candidate is a member of the party. Perhaps I had a poor word choice.

Actually i have no faith in politics at all - which is why i have an issue with this group business. Fundamentally all these groups weild political power and no definition is going to alter that reality. The only result will be driving the evidence underground where it is not readily apparent that the influence exists.

To reference your direct argument :
I think the difference in my thinking is that if you join the party you subscribe to its political values. Whether you do that becuase you believe in them or because you are machievellian doesnt really matter to the final outcome. The parties power derives from its values at some level so they are shared (truly or cynically as the case may be be).

One last point is the US political arena is a bit different than the norm in global politics. Party lines and affiliations seem to have far less meaning there than in many other jurisdictions. The example you quoted would be an uncommon to non-existent occurence in other countries that come to my mind. The difference is probably a result of many political systems being derived from/or similar to the British parliamentary model where party allegiance is generally strongly reinforced.

donsig
Jun 17, 2002, 08:42 AM
I'm off to work early today but hope to get a look at the latest version of the constitution soon. (Has there been only one set of changes so far?) The three questions you pose Shaitan are super and I for one will try to keep them in mind.

Now as for Hillary, she has more political clout in her pinky than Mr. Lazio will ever have and I think that puts her in a better position to help NY in the Senate. (Whether she will or not is a different question.) I'm just glad Alphonse retired but I do miss Moynihan. :( Can't wait for Pataki to get another job. Hmm... now what was that you were saying about political parties?

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 08:56 AM
So how about political parties then? This was a leftover from Ducky's original document that (to my mind) was never successfully explained. Are parties so bad? Should we allow them? What if they had to be tied to a citizen group? That (should) guarantee that it's not just a power block but a real joining of opinion. What about restricting each person to one party (as we do here in the US)? Is a party system feasible in our game?

Donsig - There hasn't been a change in the document since the one I posted on Wednesday.

Everybody - I could use some help with the terminology questions raised by Rain. Please see her detail post and my response.

disorganizer
Jun 17, 2002, 09:02 AM
party system was denied because in party-system you cant vote for a candidate but only for the party. new citizens will never be able to be an official because they have to work to top of a candidate list of a party to be elected.
thats why dof banned them.

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 11:09 AM
Ah! That's crazy!

I've never seen a ballot that says vote for party X or Y. You always get a slate of candidates and vote for the one you want for each position. If the ballot setup is the only reason this was disallowed, that is very easy to fix. In fact, no fixing is needed as we already poll by candidate.

Cyc
Jun 17, 2002, 12:13 PM
I believe political parties are a bad idea, still. We already have the underground parties existing in this game as Rain stated. There's the tea party club, the secret handshake club, the treehouse boys club, etc. Problem is, this game is still changing so much, so often, that members of clubs jump from one club to the other. There is no solidarity or concrete basis for a club (I mean political party, excuse me...). If political parties is what we eventually want to go to, we are a long way off from that point. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to find out who we are as a nation, before we split off into factions. Right now we need to work on "our" Constitution. Not worry about if we should vote for Dick or Jane because we want to ski behind the boat. Let's drop the power struggles and make a move to help each other move closer to one another. After we have become one and have decided which direction to go, then we can turn on each other and stab the next person in the back. (oops, sorry. A flash of real life political parties slipped in there.)

Shaitan. I'm slowly working on the latest comments about the proposed Constitution. I need a little more time.

Rain
Jun 17, 2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Shaitan
Ah! That's crazy!

I've never seen a ballot that says vote for party X or Y. You always get a slate of candidates and vote for the one you want for each position. If the ballot setup is the only reason this was disallowed, that is very easy to fix. In fact, no fixing is needed as we already poll by candidate.

I think the reason that parties were seen as odious is because once you have them you will in fact get the results seen in british parliamentary style systems which essentially would mean that the opposition can probably go on vacation til the next election in the context of this game. That is surmise on my part - I suppose there could be better outcomes, but given the nature of the game i suspect those out of power will wither away and lose interest. It also promotes oppositional behavior which in spite of our acrimony over some subjects we generally seem to avoid on matters of substance within the game.

I think a better proposal would be prevent a member of any established group from holding office while they are a member of said group. This has a sound basis in reality as well based on conflict of interest.

Besides if your primary interest is in governance then you probaly dont have time for group activities anyway which i see (rightly or wrongly) as a means to occupy time for those not in office. I have described most of these groups as lobbies previously and i think it is the best definition still. So if you want to be lobbyist you cant be in governement and vice versa. The lobbyist can still agitate on their particular field of interest. Yet since members can't hold office they can't by definition be political parties.

So in terms of law:

1) Groups are permitted.

2) All groups are defined as lobby groups.

3) No member of a lobby group may hold a government office while a member of that group as this constitutes a conflict of interest both in appearance and fact.

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 12:39 PM
Shaitan. I'm slowly working on the latest comments about the proposed Constitution. I need a little more time.
Take your time. We're going for quality, not speed. ;)

Are those actual parties? I'm either deaf or undesirable as I haven't heard of any of them.

Rain
Jun 17, 2002, 12:44 PM
The fact you don't know they exist is why you are still alive Shaitain :egypt:

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 12:53 PM
Rain - Excellent! I've added it to the working copy.

This is the only change so far so I haven't uploaded it yet. I'll upload whatever we have before 4PM EST (21:00 GMT)

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Rain
The fact you don't know they exist is why you are still alive Shaitain :egypt:
:lol:

Shaitan
Jun 17, 2002, 02:08 PM
Constitution C, version 1.3 (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/ConstitutionCv1-3.zip)

Shaitan
Jun 18, 2002, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Shaitan
We've got a couple of items that sort of fell by the wayside as we got into discussion on the quorums and poll styles. Please share your ideas on these:
Who controls workers?
Who has default command of items not detailed in the rules?
Who decides what to do with leaders?
Other sticky threads (Cultural Art Museum, Newspaper, Awards). We need a category name for these.
Citizens initiating votes on procedures, laws.
My thoughts are: The President/DP
The President
The people, via polls. The polls would be the responsibility of the Pres.
No idea. I'm drawing a blank here.
I say no, but without great conviction. I like the idea but I think it's a huge can of worms that is better left unopened.
Any more feedback on these issues? Cyc is the only one who commented on them. In the last revision I categorized the independent threads (#4 above) as "Heritage" threads. For the others, I'm ready to implement my suggestions on 1-3. #5 doesn't require an action unless we want to implement it so it will remain as is unless we get some discussion on implementation.

donsig
Jun 18, 2002, 07:46 AM
I agree on the first 3. #4 sounds like forum reorganization stuff. Haven't thought much about that. Haven't thought much about #5 either.

Are all these for the articles of the coonstitution or are some for laws and standards? I still like the idea of a stand alone constitution that we can ratify soon.

I will try to spend time with the constitution today. :)

Shaitan
Jun 18, 2002, 07:51 AM
Those are all for laws and standards. They'd been sitting on the back burner for a while so I wanted to clear them out.

disorganizer
Jun 18, 2002, 07:55 AM
* i would propose if an issue is specified in the rules as "decidable in chat", this can be done. if not, the issue has to be brought to forum. so i would propose the other way around than u. a kind of "if its not in the rules, make a poll for it".
* leaders=poll
* workers: national=domestic leader (what would be his job without this?), provincial=governor. governors can "lent" workers to the nation for a period of time or for a specific project.

Cyc
Jun 18, 2002, 07:55 AM
I just d/l ver. 1.3. I have been working on this in the background and have not been pleased with my thoughts. I'll try to get it written down and posted.

Shaitan
Jun 18, 2002, 08:19 AM
Disorganizer, we're trying to decide who is responsible for those items. The wording in my post is poor. It isn't giving autocratic control over those items, just determining who's job it is to organize the decision.

The problem brought up with having various officials in charge of different workers was implementation. There's no way to keep track of what worker belongs to who.

Shaitan
Jun 18, 2002, 08:27 AM
Workers:

I think that the various leaders should specify their desired improvements and then the DP should manage the workers on the projects. The DP is the only one who is going to know the most efficient way to get projects completed. The Domestic Leader would be responsible for determining national projects (and the Capital Province) and the provincial governors would be responsible for their individual provinces. National projects would include things like road and rail networks. Provincial projects would be city terrain improvements.

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 01:19 AM
@Shaitan:
No specific worker-recognition would be needed. If the DL has lent 2 workers from provinces, he has to give them back when the projects are finished.
Example:
The DL asks the governors of Ameri and Normandy to lent one worker each for a project near fox nest (say, cutting 3 jungle tiles).
After this work was finished, he has to give those two back.
No tracking of which worker belongs to which province will be needed, the DL just has to track how many workers he lent from which province (and maybe nationality of the worker!).
Maybe a increas in province budget for the time the worker is lent to the Nation is a good price for lenting workers (should be a fixed price for all provinces).

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 04:27 AM
Worker nationality wouldn't need to be tracked. Any provincial workers will be native. All foreign workers would be federal.

Our budget doesn't work that way. Budget is allocated for specific purposes - there's no increase or decrease, just yes or no.

The big problem with any provincial worker system is efficiency. We sacrifice a huge amount of overall efficiency if each province "owns" its own workers. It also adds another level of minutiae to running the game. Would governors need a list of tasks for each worker? What if they don't supply enough tasks? Does the DP use a worker or let it sit idle?

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 05:08 AM
If a worker is left idle, the DL can use it immediately, as the governor obviously does not want it any more (except the situation where the governor left an order to let the worker sit idle in a city).
At the moment instructions for a worker are missing, the DL takes ownership of the worker. The worker is promoted from a provincial to a federal employee.
With this system, there will always be enough workers to clean pollution later on, for example, in each province, as this will be a provincial task to do ;-)
The governors should supply detailed worker info also right now, as also tile-usage information.
We should investigate why they dont follow their job-description ;-)

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 05:51 AM
It's just way too complex a system. I don't see enough benefit to warrant the additional managament. This would be a precedent for the Military Leader directing each troop movement and activity. I guess I just don't think we want or need such granular control.

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 06:09 AM
the military is a different think, as there will be much more military units than workers and with much more possibilities. workers are, when started to work, static.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 06:16 AM
As Donsig said, our first goal should be to present and get approval for the Constitution. The Codes of Laws and Standards flow from the Constitution itself. The three questions that we need to be able to answer "YES" to are:
Will this constitution define and defend the basic concepts of the game?
Will this constitution allow the game to progress at an acceptable rate? i.e. is it restrictive enough to allow efficient game play?
Will this constitution allow the players of the game to enjoy themselves? i.e. is it permissive enough to allow participation?
I think it's there now, but I realize I'm probably too close to the subject to judge that impartially. Following is the current version of the Constitution only. Please comment on whether it is ready for submission. If not, please comment on what needs work so we can get on it.

The Constitution of Phoenatica
We, the people of Phoenatica, in order to create an atmosphere of friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have a voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the Phoenatics.
All players of the democracy game are citizens of Phoenatica. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to demand satisfaction and the right to vote.
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of Phoenatica.
Governing rules shall consist of the Articles of the Constitution, the Code of Laws and the standards of the Code of Standards. No laws shall be passed that conflict with an article and no standards shall be used that conflict with a law or an article.
The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch and Provincial governments.
The Executive Branch is headed by the President, who shall be the designated player of the game.
The Legislative Branch will be formed of a council of leaders, each of whom heads a department that controls one major facet of the country. These departments are Domestic, Foreign, Military, Science, Culture and Trade.
The Judicial Branch will be formed of two leaders, one who is tasked with upholding the laws (Advocate General) and one who is tasked with defending the citizenry (Public Defendant).
Each province will be governed by a Provincial Governor who is responsible for the care, management and use of the cities and lands of the province.
All offices will be filled via election each calendar month with terms to begin on the 1st of the month.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.
The monthly census of active citizenry will be taken. Half of this census will constitute a quorum.
A simple majority of citizen approval shall be required to adopt or change a standard. A simple majority of citizen approval plus a simple majority of legislative approval shall be required to adopt or change a law. A 2/3 majority of citizen approval and a 2/3 majority of legislative approval shall be required to adopt or change an article.
The citizenry, by default, will hold a 25% proxy in the legislature. The citizen proxy plus the Legislative branch, divided by two, will constitute a quorum for validation of polling.
Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.
Game actions will be played out during a public turn chat.
The constitution, laws and standards of Phoenatica can never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such constitutional amendments, laws or standards.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 06:19 AM
Article L is the one that might need tweaking. It did have some discussion but no concensus was reached.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 06:22 AM
M could be clearer as well. I'll change it to:

The citizenry, by default, will hold a 25% proxy in the legislature. The citizen proxy plus the Legislative branch constitute the Council. The Council body divided by two will constitute a quorum for validation of polling.

(Comments please, if necessary.)

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 06:26 AM
A+B can be thrown together. A double definition of citizen.
A should read "All Citizens of Phoenatica...". Who cares about the players.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 06:33 AM
Good point Dis. I'll combine those.

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 06:35 AM
It just has to say that you only become a citizen if you register.

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 06:37 AM
Another point:
ist this too much details for the "book of principles"?
in my belief, this book should contain more general guidelines. we do not want to change it any more (if possible), so its a kind of "citizen rights" or "bill of rights" or something like that.
The detailing will be done in the law-book, like for example the percentages of the votes.
For example:
I: should only read ".. will be filled by elections"
the book of regulations should then define when they are filled and how elections run.

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 06:42 AM
and another one:
i miss one of the major rules we should implement as one of the first articles:
0) All decisions in the game must be based on the will of citizenry, not on the will of single persons or positions.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by disorganizer
and another one:
i miss one of the major rules we should implement as one of the first articles:
0) All decisions in the game must be based on the will of citizenry, not on the will of single persons or positions.
Article N has that. "Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people."

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by disorganizer
Another point:
ist this too much details for the "book of principles"?
in my belief, this book should contain more general guidelines. we do not want to change it any more (if possible), so its a kind of "citizen rights" or "bill of rights" or something like that.
The detailing will be done in the law-book, like for example the percentages of the votes.
For example:
I: should only read ".. will be filled by elections"
the book of regulations should then define when they are filled and how elections run.
Yup, those are in there because they're considered part of the bedrock of the system. One month terms are something we don't want to change. Of course, it still could be changed but it'll be much more difficult as it's part of the Constitution instead of the Laws or Standards.

The percentages for votes to carry need to be in the Constitution as they have the power to influence the Constitution itself. If they were a Law then a relatively easy change to the law could make changes to the Constitution relatively easy as well.

Cyc
Jun 19, 2002, 06:55 AM
Well, I'm still trying to piece together a statement. I'm just to busy it seems. The Constitution looks good as a complete document, although I don't think that there's been enough citizen response. Once this thing gets put into effect, it will take an act of congress to change.

Anyway, I know this is out of the blue, but I have been laying back on the Judicial Branch issue to see what everyone else thought of it first. In general it's a good idea. It sets up that 3rd branch for checks and balances. But I feel even though the Judicial Branch would be the proxy votes for the citizenry, we have removed the gateway, or front door, to the Presidency for the citizenry. This is just my personal opinion and I don't have another answer for it other than just adding the Judicial Branch to the existing system. It seems to me people would now have to vote for a corporate lawyer type for the JB instead of voting for an upstanding citizen for councilperson at large.
There were several other issues on the list, but this was my most important one. I just have not been able to keep up with everything.

And I don't mean to hold up your proposal, I just needed to state my opinion.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 07:03 AM
Once again, Cyc, your thoughts are similar to my own. I had been contemplating how to open up the Presidencial candidate pool. I do agree that candidates should have proven themselves before being allowed to run for the highest office but why restrict this experience to just the Council? What about making all current leaders eligible? That is, the current President, Department Leaders, Judiciary and Provincial Governors?

Cyc
Jun 19, 2002, 07:27 AM
That's a very good start. That would allow for 5 more possible candidates, but not at the begining of a new game. And some people would be happy as Governor and not give up the position to run for President. But it's a good start.

disorganizer
Jun 19, 2002, 07:29 AM
What about all officials? Deputies sometimes do almost as much work as their leader.
Maybe honoured citizens also?

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Cyc
That's a very good start. That would allow for 5 more possible candidates, but not at the begining of a new game. And some people would be happy as Governor and not give up the position to run for President. But it's a good start.
Originally posted by disorganizer
What about all officials? Deputies sometimes do almost as much work as their leader.
Maybe honoured citizens also?
Qualifying deputies would have the advantage of increasing the pool by six from the start of the game. Dis is right too that some of our deputies almost knock themselves out working in their departments. It's also (nominally) an elected position. I would support making deputies eligible.

I guess the most important thing here is that we will be able to deal with the issue Cyc brought up by using one or both of these proposals so the shift from At-Large to Judiciary won't adversely affect the presidential candidacy.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 12:49 PM
We also need an adoption plan. If we get the Constitution approved and implement it immediately it will cause some confusion without the laws and standards to actually run the game. Our new Constitution is conceptual and relies on the defining aspects of the Codes.

I propose that we do something along these lines:
Get the new Constitution approved.
The new Constitution will go into effect upon approval of the Code of Laws.
Work on the Code of Laws.
Get the Code of Laws approved.
Constitution and Code of Laws are in effect at this time. Old Constitution is retired.
Work on the Code of Standards.
Get the Code of Standards approved.
All 3 books are in effect at this time.
Comments please.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 12:54 PM
Another part of the implementation will be to include step over rules. For example, we need to clarify that the Senior At-Large council will become the new Public Defender and the At-Large council will become the Judge Advocate (or vice versa). Or should we have special elections to fill these positions and the At-Large councilors simply vanish? Unlike the At-Large councils, the 2 new positions have very different responsibilities. As Cyc mentioned, it does not necessarily follow that you would want the same person in both positions.

Cyc
Jun 19, 2002, 01:03 PM
Good. A gradual move to the new Constitution. If an issue gets snagged in one, we can look to the other and propose a poll to send to the citizens.
I also like the idea about deputies that Dis brought up. An extension of your "all officials" idea. Now we've opened up the Presidential race.

Shaitan
Jun 19, 2002, 01:25 PM
Version 1.4 is uploaded. LINK (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/ConstitutionCv1-4.zip)

In case anybody didn't catch on - anything in blue was changed from the previous version. I've been doing that from the start but just realized that I never mentioned it. You can quickly scan down the document to see what has changed from the last upload.

Shaitan
Jun 20, 2002, 05:49 AM
The last issue with the Constitution (not the other books) was raised at 13:55 GMT yesterday. In about an hour it'll be a full day without an issue raised. I'm proposing that we go ahead with polling the citizenry for adoption of the new Constitution.

Proposed poll question and options:

Do you approve the adoption and implementation of the new Constitution? (Please read first post before voting.)
Yes
No
Abstain

First post:

Poll goal
This poll is to adopt a new Constitution for Phoenatica. This poll will approve only the new Constitution. The new Code of Laws and new Code of Standards will be developed and polled separately.

Definitions for clarification
The Articles of the Constitution are the framework of the game. These are the game concepts and ideas, plus the individual rules that must be considered permanent for the game to function. These will be very difficult to change.
The laws in the Code of Law are the enforceable rules of the game. These are the general rules and regulations that must be followed for the game to function efficiently and allow the participants to enjoy themselves in a community environment. These will be easier to change than articles but are still relatively static.
The standards in the Code of Standards are the mechanics, procedures and minutiae of the game. Following these standards will allow the game to flow smoothly and greatly reduce clutter and confusion. These will be relatively easy to change.

Discussion Thread
This document was developed over the past month in this thread [Link].

Implementation
If approved, this document will not immediately be in effect. This document will become active when the new Code of Laws is approved.

Poll duration
This poll will last for one week, ending at 00:00 GMT on MMDDYY.

EDIT: Almost forgot - the actual Constitution that is being voted on will be here, at the end of the post.

Shaitan
Jun 20, 2002, 06:04 AM
In the post following that one I'll list the major changes (such as At-Large being replaced by Judiciary) and give my arguments for why the new Constitution should be approved.

donsig
Jun 20, 2002, 06:50 AM
I propose we have a discussion thread about the proposed constitution itself before polling. I feel guilty about playing my Civ 2 GOTM last night instead of looking at the constitution. :(

eyrei
Jun 20, 2002, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by donsig
I propose we have a discussion thread about the proposed constitution itself before polling. I feel guilty about playing my Civ 2 GOTM last night instead of looking at the constitution. :(

I agree. The final draft should be posted at the top of a new thread with a very obvious title. I am guessing many of our citizens stopped reading this thread a while ago, so they may not be aware that this is about to come to a vote.

I also feel guilty, as I was playing Neverwinter Nights instead of reading the constitution last night.:(

Shaitan
Jun 20, 2002, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by donsig
I feel guilty about playing my Civ 2 GOTM last night instead of looking at the constitution. :(
Shame on you. :spank:
Originally posted by Eyrei
I also feel guilty, as I was playing Neverwinter Nights instead of reading the constitution last night. :(
And you as well. :spank:

I've started a discussion thread as requested. Hopefully we'll get some more people to pipe up. ;)


Discussion thread for the new Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25340)

Eklektikos
Jun 20, 2002, 07:49 AM
Read through the constitution/laws/standards last night as a bit of light reading before bed... The constitution looks good to me, but I'm not sure about Code Of Laws section A 1 a:
(2) All groups are defined as lobby groups.
(3) No member of a lobby group may hold a government office while a member of that group, as this constitutes a conflict of interest.
I'm not convinced that it really does constitute a conflict of interest in all or even many cases. How does being a member of the Spice Trader's Guild cause a conflict for Chieftess as Trade Secretary? How does being a member of the War Church cause a conflict for President Donsig?
My personal opinion is that a leader will continue to believe in the ideals of the groups he/she was a member of even if they resign their membership. In fact I believe that it's better to know which issues our leaders support via their memberships, so that newcomers can more easily judge what kind of player is in what job.

Shaitan
Jun 20, 2002, 08:01 AM
The intent of the item is to reduce the possibility that a government official will be able to control a block of votes through their citizen affiliations. Perhaps forbidding membership is a bit much though. After all, every President the US has had was a member of the Freemasons and the majority have been members of the NRA (yup, even the Democrats). How about restricting officials from being the Head of a citizen group?

Eklektikos
Jun 20, 2002, 08:15 AM
That would be better... But I don't know that even that is really necessary. Citizen group leaders have no real leverage on their members to make them do anything. Perhaps it would be better to just say that citizen group leaders can make members aware of a poll, but not advise them how to vote. What are your thoughts on that?

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, I like Shaitan's suggestion better. Implementing my idea would just lead to confusion and controversy.

Shaitan
Jul 01, 2002, 06:04 AM
Please unstick this thread. It has fulfilled its purpose and its child threads are doing the job now. This sub-forum is too crowded with sticky threads and this one has not had activity in over 2 weeks.