(B)= Area I'm talking about is bolded above. Same with (I) & (U).


* Science Department

1. Organize tech research queue.
2. Organize tech trades.
3. Organize tech espionage.


* Trade Department

1. Organize trade deals.
2. Track the status and expiration of established deals.

I believe the trade department and the science department should share this power(B). If we force the departments to work together we might get stuff done AlOT easier.

* Domestic Department

1. Organize decisions about settler placement.
2. Organize decisions about wonder building.
3. Organize the science/tax/luxury rate.
4. Organize departmental and provincial budgets.
5. Governor of cities that do not have a provincial governor.
6. Call a Mobilization Council Vote to determine if the economy should be mobilized.
7. Organize mapping of Provincial Borders.



The Science Leader should be able to change the Sci rate(B), BUT the domestic department can override this at any time.

1. Quorum level is 1/2 of the active census.
2. Poll should proceed as follows:
1. Discussion thread, up for 24 hours minimum (48 hours plus is preferred). Then,
2. Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum. Then,
3. Poll posted with link from discussion thread.
4. Poll duration is a minimum of 24 hours (48 hours plus is preferred).
1. If the poll runs into the weekend it is advised that the duration be extended by 24 hours for each weekend day. Forum participation is much lower on the weekends.
5. Link to the poll in the Poll Registry and/or Department Thread (if appropriate).

The quorum(B) has caused more pain then anything else. And Why half of the active citizens? We should already know that the number of active citizens is always changing and we will never know how many their are.

(I)Ok.... So it takes 24 hours(or 48 hours preferred) to start a discussion then 24 hours to run a poll? That's 3 days max right their and that's if everyone agree's on one topic! T/C's are about 4 days apart (estimated guest). Also 24 hours with the quorum do not mix. The Science Polls get about 16 votes in 3 days!

I did have something else that we need to add, but I forgot it....

On your first point, which I do think needs addressing, someone suggested - Trade handles lux and resource trading, Science handles tech trading. I like that idea. What do you think?

But I think the Domestic Dept. should handle the sci/lux rate, and I like the quorum system the way it is. It's the voting population we need to change :).

how about minimum turn rate per t/c is mad praps 5 turns at least becaus eif we keep going like this well never get anywhere

im all for this.
especialy to reduce donsig related hedaches.

I propose erasing the "stop the game when a new civilization is met" part of the Constitution. It's totally useless to start a turn chat just to finish it after one turn beacuse a warrior from another civ hapened to bump into us. If as elected officials we have not the power or authority to deal with this new aspect of the game then what are we there for. Also, the people that attend the turn chats go out of their way to attend, most of us have lives and to stop it (th eturn chat) before it even starts is frustraiting. The elected officials, along with the citizens in the tc should be able to handle the meeting of a new civ.

Ehecatl Atzin

Ehecatl Atzin

There isn't anything that says we have to stop. The president may end the chat at his/her discresion. It's possible for the rest of the game until our eventual victory to be played out in one chat.

I would be opposed to all changes proposed. It is the responsibility of these three departments to work together. There is no need to force them to do so.

Also, about the quroum, look into using a quick poll. The CoS says that quick polls may be used discussion is unwarrented, or due to time constraints. Quick polls have a quroum level of 1/3 the census. The polls have to be temporary changes, or one time specific changes. Examples include: city name changes, change in tiles worked in a city, tile development, upgrading troops, and changing a build queue.

i am very against your first proposal, yet it makes so much sense, so i guess ill have to deal with it. I am ver for your quorum change to half, but do you realize thats still 40 people. the problem is that there are about 80 people, most of which signed up for the heck of it and never actually played, or got bored and quit. I think the quorum number should be 10, regardless. This way we all still have quorum, but its not such an obstacle. Lastly, i think if we erase the bit about stopping TC when we reach another civ shoulc be erased, and forgotten. This reasent TC was only one turn long. Thas risiculous. I see that the people should vote and such, but if we have a spot vote, the people who care that much would be there anyway.

The Great Iguanaman

Originally posted by Octavian X
There isn't anything that says we have to stop. The president may end the chat at his/her discresion. It's possible for the rest of the game until our eventual victory to be played out in one chat.


Yes, but can you imagine the trouble that would have started if we would have continued playing? at least 5 people would have had a fit. It may not be in the Constitution, but it's still practiced, it shouldn't even have to come to a vote to stop, the game should resume as normal.

Ehecatl Atzin

i oppose this, iguanamans point about it still being 40 persons is a primary reason. also, the trade ministrys purpose in life is making sure we get the best bang for our buck. that should extend to tech trades as well.

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
im all for this.
especialy to reduce donsig related hedaches.

These proposals will not reduce the donsig headaches in any way. It is very unfortunate that the Bills played a 4 o'clock game last Sunday. Had I been at the chat rather than watching football there would certainly have been a donsig migraine rather than a donsig headache.

If you want to reduce donsig headaches try a dose of common sense government that listens to the people and not a few select individuals who attend the turn chat.:hammer:

Do you really think we care about you, donsig? :D j/k

Like I've said, it is the responsiblity of the three departments to work together to achieve a common goal.

If you really want to force people to work together, a council vote may be used to override an elected official's instructions.

For example, trade and FA want to sell amphibious warfare, but science. Since science has say in that matter, the trade won't happen. However, either trade of FA could call an administrative council vote to get the trade to go through. If the vote passes, science's instuctions are overridden, and the trade occurs.

I agree, Donsig. And that's why the turn chat was stopped last Sunday. To bring the new issues of trade and international diplomacy and military advantage to the people. We're soory the Bills played at 4 last Sunday too. We could have used your wisdom at the chat.

Here's a picture of eyrei, Eklektikos, and me at the turn chat:

:wallbash: :aargh: :sleep:

Originally posted by donsig
These proposals will not reduce the donsig headaches in any way. It is very unfortunate that the Bills played a 4 o'clock game last Sunday. Had I been at the chat rather than watching football there would certainly have been a donsig migraine rather than a donsig headache.

If you want to reduce donsig headaches try a dose of common sense government that listens to the people and not a few select individuals who attend the turn chat.:hammer:
You're a Bills fan?! Where are you? I'm a displaced Buffalonian in a southern NFC town, meaning my chance of actually seeing a Bills game this year is approximately zilch. :(

Clarification on how the quorum is figured:

The census thread has nothing to do with the Active Census or the Quorum. Each election cycle we use the participation level in the election polls to generate 2 numbers. The highest participation in any poll (usually the presidential election) is concidered our Census for that term. The average participation in ALL the elections is our Active Census for that term. One half of this active census is our quorum for most polls.

SPAM deleted

Another idea for a cons-change:
"no citizen is allowed to sell his vote or give his vote to someone for any kind of profit"

just to secure us against "indirect" party-like organizations :-)

dis, i agree. If a citizen was allowed to sell his vote then the richest would win. Then of course there are those who dont play the RPG aspect of the game.

The Great Iguanaman

I believe vote selling is banned by the CoL. Section A says that each citizen will vote with their conscience. This rules out voting with pocketbooks.

I think it says that no citizen may be forced to vote against their concience. This would rule out blackmail but not bribery.

i second shaitan ;-)
thats why i propose that change... i also offered my votes for sale at the moment, so sue me :-P
but i warn you i will buy the lawyers to sue the one trying to sue me for that to give me the money i loose with the pi which would be about 2000-4000 gold :-PP

(shaitan: regard this as reservation of your service on this purpose)

dis, what if someone said that you voted for someone because they supported a policy that would benefit you? As evidence, they cited thread statements from you, saying that you wanted x policy because you would gain from it, and they cited the candidate saying they supported policy x and planned to implement it.

How would you defend yourself in a PI on the grounds you voted as you did for the sole purpose of gaining a profit, not because you felt they were the best qualified?

My argument here is that bribery has not been an issue, is clearly wrong, and candidates attempting to utilize it will have a hard chance of winning as it would be very hard to hide the kind of widespread bribery needed to win an election. However, a law such as the one proposed opens the door to a whole lot of painful and stupid legal accusations. Though I agree with you in spirit.

I think in the bigger picture that any actual attempt to spend gold to buy votes would be spotted pretty quickly.

We can't think of in advance all the possible ways people could try to organize voting blocs, but fortunately we don't need too. Instead, we should always focus on the end result intention, and in the case of bribery, it is organizing a bloc of votes, something i would call a political party.

If we take the idea that no where is bribery specifically forbidden in our Constitution, then we will embark down a very dangerous road.

For example, no where does it say that robbery is illegal either, therefore, anyone could post in the RPG thread that they have robbed the Bank of Fanatika for all of it's funds, etc... Chaos would take over.

If we cannot take action against bribery or the selling of votes, then our democracy is lost, and we will need to beg the Mods to step in. I'd prefer to solve our own problems ourselves.

Bill
Judge Advocate

No Rule, No Ground for a PI.
If you want to deny something, make a rule.
No personal preference shall influence our judges on the decissions.

And i personally think that a political party is much worse than buying votes :-P
Political parties vote for a representative. The problem of parties is that non-members have no chance of winning. You vote for a party (or get forced to vote for the "right" candidate just because you are member of it).
And i can do with my vote what i want. Its like the free speach act. And on the other hand: Who would put up evidence i REALLY voted for that person?
Maybe the money i get i just for helping me because we are so good FRIENDS ;-) ?
Anyways, there is no ground in our ruleset to deny the buying of votes and this is definitely not a political party.

@danke:
my proposel is not well worded i believe. it was just to get discussion up and running.
i cant find the right words to really get it up to bribery or other "bonus"-systems for voting.
of course, i could vote for less tax etc. thats not bribery.

@bill:
some quotes out of the dictionary:
political party
n : an organization to gain political power;
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University



party
SYLLABICATION: par·ty
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: pärt KEY
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. par·ties
...
2. An established political group organized to promote and support its principles and candidates for public office.
...
Source: yahoo dictionary:

now if i take def1 i dont want to gain power when selling my vote. and with def2 i am no group and dont promote my principles or candidate with that :-P

so when selling my vote, im not a political party and due to this not forbidden by law

can we state that the DP has the ability to go on after contact is made?

The DP may end the chat at anytime already.

As to this vote buying controversy, my thought is that it violates a citizen's right to vote. The CoL specifically states that each citizen should vote according to his own conscience. Paying people off to vote for you, I feel, would be illegal.
I will also be contacting the bank management to make sure transactions of this type do not occur.

Octavian: Well, if someone wants to pay me for that, i will definitely post the transaction in the bank. If im not payed, i will sue for it.
My conscience is money-based, so when selling my vote i will definitely vote in my conscience and it is not up to the judicacy to tell my what my conscience is.
No rule, no measure.
Bring up a specific rule and i will stop :-P