OK, let's try to make some concrete progress! :hammer:

This thread assumes that we consider the results of the poll on where to start from as binding, and we have decided to modify the three books from DG2.

The preamble taken from DG2's constitution is as follows.


We, the people of Fanatika, 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 Fanatiks.


I propose keeping this intact, except for changes related to possibly using a different name for our great nation.

Section A of the DG2 constitution is shown here.


A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of Fanatika. 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.


I propose striking or rewording the right to demand satisfaction because that clause caused problems during DG3 Term 3. The intent here is that an injured party has the right to file a complaint against the offending individual, and to have that complaint handled in a fair and impartial way. The term "demand satisfaction" in a historical context meant the right to challenge the accused to a duel, and the PI process is often used in that context. In the U.S. constitution this is handled by the term "equal protection under the law". Another term which is often seen in contracts is "redress of grievances". The key thing to try to get written down is that one is not guaranteed "satisfaction", only that a complaint is dealt with fairly.

Section B and C taken from the DG2 constitution are:


B. Governing rules shall consist of the Articles of the Constitution, the Code of Laws and 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.

C. The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.


I propose keeping these sections intact. Polls already indicated that we want to modify the Three Books, and have three branches of government.

Those proposals for CON A-C as well as the preamble look good to me.

Same. Everything looks alright with me :D.

Now, I like this thread DS. This is an appropriate way to address the Con.

I would agree with you on these three Articles. They are pretty basic and well written. I would say that "redress of grievances" would be an adequate term to use in Article A.

Everything here looks good here, Dave. :goodjob:

I agree with your analysis DS. As far as a substitute phrase in Article A, another option could be "request judicial oversight".

I like this overall. Need to be careful in Article A, as the constitution overrides all laws and standards. I would not use specific terms there, and instead support what Cyc said. "redress of grievances" is a good term.

I think redress is about the same as the original language. Redress would imply that the citizen making the complaint is right and gets what they are looking for. That is why I suggested something that implies the citizen only gets their day in court, not getting what they are looking for as justice. In the end, we are aguing a minor point here, so lets not put too much into this.

REDRESS
A
(1) : to set right : REMEDY
(2) : to make up for : COMPENSATE

B : to remove the cause of (a grievance or complaint)
C : to exact reparation for

zorven, I fond this:

Redress ~ impose fairness or equality on: to adjust a situation in order to make things fair or equal.

I believe this is the concept we're looking for. I think this term might work for you if we put the word "seek" in front of it. Every citizen has the right to seek redress of grievances. Even if their complaint is shot down as "no merit", they were still able to seek redress.

Cyc, I would agree with "the right to seek redress of grievances".

First of all I object to the use of the DG2 constiution as a starting point, and I don't care what your silly poll said. We modified the DG2 constitution and came up withthe DG3 constitution. It is plain silliness to go back to the DG2 constitution and and start the process anew. We should be modifying the DG3 constitution not this one. Here are my formal proposals:

Preamble: We, the people of Fanatica, 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 an equal 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 citizens.


This is the DG3 preamble with the phrae *each citizen must have a voice* replaced with the phrase *each citizen must have an equal voice*.

Article A: B. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country. 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 seek to redress grievances and the right to vote.

This is article B of the DG3 constitution with 2 changes. *Fanatika* has been replaced by *our country* and *the right to demand satisfaction* has been replaced with *right to seek to redress grievances*.

My proposal for article B: Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so.

This is Article A of the DG3 constitution. There is no need to spell out a Code of Laws and a Code of Standards in the constitution. the wording of this article allows us to have either a CoL or CoS or both. I was under the impression that it was still to be discussed and decided whether we wanted and/or needed three levels of rules for two levels may serve us well enough.

Article c: The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

This is article C of the DG3 constitution without the sub-article clauses. They can be hammered into shape and go into the Code of Laws

donsig, I like your proposal. I just think your Article B should list the CoL and the CoS. This is the point of your whole debate on the reforming of the Constitution, I know, but Constitutionally, with your Article B you could legally ignore the workings of both books. :) I know you've thought about this and if your Article B is passed, I fully expecct to read a post from you stating that in some form. I realize you don't recognize the Will of the People on this issue (our silly poll), but that's the way it is. The wet dishrag Con of DG3 didn't work for us. We want a new version of the Three Books.

But I like the rest of your proposal. :)

Under my propsed article B any CoL or CoS that was in place could not be legally ignored. I am not opposed to the idea (in theory or in practice) of a set of rules under our constitution. I am opposed to a set of rules that is unreasonable and unwieldy and that is what the old CoL and CoS are. It may well be possible for us all to agree that the DG3 constitution with the proper set of underlying laws would be a great combination. It seems obvious that *what didn't work for us* was not the DG3 constitution but the idea that we would make rules as we went along. We've decided that we'll get that underlying set of rules in place before we start DG4.

Unfortunately, (and this is where I denouce the silly poll), rather than discuss the situation clearly, calmly and reasonably to arrive at the conclusion I stated above, we debated a *restrictive* versus a *permissive* rule set. Somehow *restrictive* was equated with the old DG2 rule set while *permissive* was identified with the DG3 constitution. We never once stopped to think that by adding to the DG3 constitution or modifying the old DG2 rules we could arrive at the same document, which could be as *restrictive* or as *permissive* as we choose. We spent alot of time getting nowhere.

I guess my point is that if you don't want my proposed article B to be ignorable then we'd best get around to making some laws to give article B some teeth.

I like my proposed wording for article B simply because it does not lock us into having both A CoL and a CoS. I see no point in retaining both levels of rules as used in DG2. The original proposal was for a CoL enacted by the Congress (the citizens as a whole) and a CoS dictated by leaders. This idea was transformed into a dual level of laws made by the Congress. The idea behind the transformation was that the CoS would serve as a proving ground for new laws that would eventually be bumped up to the CoL. If we've decided we really won't be making rules as we go and are doing all that stuff before we start DG4 then we don't need a proving ground. By using the general wording of my proposal we do not have to debate all that stuff in this thread for it neither locks us into a CoL and CoS nor prevents us from having both. We can pin down article B now and start a thread to discuss whether we really want and / or need both the CoL and CoS.

Responding to donsig:

It seems obvious that *what didn't work for us* was not the DG3 constitution but the idea that we would make rules as we went along.
Precisely. I'm glad we agree on this. The use of the DG3 Con and phantom books just did not work.

We never once stopped to think that by adding to the DG3 constitution or modifying the old DG2 rules we could arrive at the same document, which could be as *restrictive* or as *permissive* as we choose. We spent alot of time getting nowhere.
Of course we thought of that, donsig. I wrote a long-winded post or three) about that. The difference between a restrictive and permissive structure in this case was a vague Con with supporting books and a more detailed Con with no supporting books. Who cares what we should have done or were supposed to get done. It didn't get done, thus the difference between the two structures. But you're right, we did spend a lot of time getting nowhere, just not because of the point you make.

I guess my point is that if you don't want my proposed article B to be ignorable then we'd best get around to making some laws to give article B some teeth.
We're in the process of doing that now. It does seem funny that now we know in which direction to move the game, the forum has died. Now that we've gotten over ;) the restrictive and permissive part of it, we can spearhead to the laws and standards.

The original proposal was for a CoL enacted by the Congress (the citizens as a whole) and a CoS dictated by leaders. This idea was transformed into a dual level of laws made by the Congress. The idea behind the transformation was that the CoS would serve as a proving ground for new laws that would eventually be bumped up to the CoL.
The transformation of the CoS to it present form of Standards imposed to help define the Laws is a much better way of having it, especially as its run by the Congress and not the Leaders, don't you agree? :)

If we've decided we really won't be making rules as we go and are doing all that stuff before we start DG4 then we don't need a proving ground. By using the general wording of my proposal we do not have to debate all that stuff in this thread for it neither locks us into a CoL and CoS nor prevents us from having both. We can pin down article B now and start a thread to discuss whether we really want and / or need both the CoL and CoS.
We have decided not to make the rules up as we go along (although I sure changes will be proposed throughout the game), and we don't need a proving ground. You're right! And we don't need to debate all that stuff in this thread 'cause its already been decided. I think Article B has already been pretty well accepted as it is and I'm sure a thread debating the laws in the CoL and the standards in the CoS will open shortly. ;)

Cyc, my old friend, I can see I still am not making my point clear about the CoL and CoS. Any, yes, the point needs to be made here and now if we are to draft a clause of the constitution that deals with them.

Cyc said:
We're in the process of doing that now. It does seem funny that now we know in which direction to move the game, the forum has died. Now that we've gotten over ;) the restrictive and permissive part of it, we can spearhead to the laws and standards.

donsig replies:
So you agree then that we do not have to specify a CoL and a CoS on the constitution?

Cyc said:
The transformation of the CoS to it present form of Standards imposed to help define the Laws is a much better way of having it, especially as its run by the Congress and not the Leaders, don't you agree? :)

donsig replies:
No, I do not agree. I do not think we need a Code of Standards to define our Code of Laws which in turn defines our constitution. A constitution defined by a Code of Laws is enough. If you want to take everything in the old COS and fold it into the CoL that's one thing, but we do not need three different levels of laws! The intent behind the Code of Standards was never that a leader or leader be able to make any kind of law. The original intent of the CoS was that it would be a listing of executive orders encompassing things like how the president wanted the game play instruction thread to be formatted or how the domestic leader wanted to handle budget requests or things like that. It was meant for strictly administrative things and that is why it was to be left in the hands of the leaders.
As I've said before, Shaitan changed the whole concept making the CoS a proving ground for the CoL. If, as you seem to agree with, we don't need a proving ground and further, don't want any administrative standards as in the original proposal - then let's get rid of the idea of a CoS. We can still take any useful rules in the old CoS and incorporate them into the new CoL.

But if we write a constitutional article expressly creating a CoS then we are constitutionally bound to have one. Now if we really don't want or need a CoS - despite the silly poll we had - then now is the time to leave it out of the constitution.

Cyc said:
You're right! And we don't need to debate all that stuff in this thread 'cause its already been decided. I think Article B has already been pretty well accepted as it is and I'm sure a thread debating the laws in the CoL and the standards in the CoS will open shortly.

If we have truly already decided we want both a CoL and a CoS then, once again, we've managed to bind ourselves by another ill conceived poll. :(

donsig,

The only thing silly about my poll is that I didn't allow an option of using the DG3 Constitution, with a reworking of the two lower books from DG2 to support it. If we would like to endure one more "silly" poll, I can try to rectify this error in judgement by letting the citizens decide between our last two Constitutions. Then we can leave the winner intact for now, while we try to build a ruleset that supports it.

I like the idea of the CoS, as do a majority of the citizenry. While it it true that Book #3 is somewhat of a "proving ground" as defined by Shaitan, my interpretation of it is one of game procedures(ie Standards) that should be easier to change than an item from the CoL. Although not at any leaders's whim, as you seem to suggest. ;)

So, what do you think? Do we want to rework the DG3 Constitution instead? It would be a shame if we put in so much effort into reworking the DG2 Constitution again, only to have it look like DG3's. :(

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
So, what do you think? Do we want to rework the DG3 Constitution instead? It would be a shame if we put in so much effort into reworking the DG2 Constitution again, only to have it look like DG3's. :(

I really don't get it - the DG2 and DG3 constitutions are nearly identical - whether we choose to re-work the DG2 or DG3 constitution we are basically starting from the same place. We already started reviewing the DG2 constitution through section C. Lets continue that and be done with it.

Granted I didn't play DG2, but I just don't understand why we have 3 levels of law. What donsig states as to the original purpose of the CoS makes more sense to me. If the legislature doesn't like what a leader is doing with the CoS, then let them codify it in the CoL, but lets not have 2 additional layers beneath the constitution.

DZ - I assumed you are leading this process, but haven't seen you start any discussions for reviewing and modding the DG2 books since that poll passed. Are you going to be doing that, or is that up to whoever decides to jump on an issue, such as DaveShack has done with this thread. I only want to know so that we don't end up with all of us just sitting here waiting for threads to show up so we can start reviewing specific sections of the DG2 books. I suppose your answer would then dictate who would poll the results of each thread.

Thanks for your concern, zorven, and my apologies for going astray.

I have actually asked for final toughts in the Judiciary Reform and Election Schedule threads, and will poll them tomorrow if we are ready. Next on the list will be Executive Branch Leadership Structure and Legislative Branch Leadership Structure, as we need to get these basics in place before further defining leadership roles.

I still haven't had the time to iron out an actual timeline for our discussions, but will use my best judgment until then.

Donovan Zoi, I do not keep referring to the silly poll in an effort to get you or anyone else to post yet another silly poll. I do so in an effort to prevent more silly polls by any of us.

I have not asked for any new poll. I have made specific proposals in this thread in accordance with the procedure that has thus far been established. If we had a judiciary in place I would be asking for a judicial review on whether the poll in question binds us to have a CoS. I would like to see the idea behind the CoS discussed and maybe even given a nice unbiased poll if consensus is not reached through discussion. I do not think it improper of me to raise this issue now since we are debating the form of a constitutional article directly dealing with the CoS. I also do not think this issue was dealt with sufficiently in the poll in question, which was very broad in scope.

I am also quite willing to debate the issue here in this thread as that also seems proper.

Donovan Zoi said:
I like the idea of the CoS, as do a majority of the citizenry. While it it true that Book #3 is somewhat of a "proving ground" as defined by Shaitan, my interpretation of it is one of game procedures(ie Standards) that should be easier to change than an item from the CoL. Although not at any leaders's whim, as you seem to suggest. ;)

donsig replies:
Well, DZ, do you think we need a *proving ground*? That is a different thing from a set of game procedures that should be easier to change than *laws*. What types of things fall into your category of game procedures? Would standards have the force of laws, i.e., would breaking a standard make one liable to a PI? Would violating a standard be the same as violating a law? (Would the potential punishment be the same?) Would violating either of these be the same as violating the constitution? The DG2 PI systems never really distinguighed between the three levels. I assume the DG3 PI system doesn't either since we only had the constitution in DG3. These are the types of things that have to be considered when making multiple levels of laws.

Would we not be better off removing these game procedures from our legal system? Also, must we tie our leader's hands by specifying things like this regarding the game play instruction thread:

B. First Post:
1. Time and date when the chat will be held
2. Save game which will be used

Does this mean the first post can include only this stuff? If the president adds something (like a summary of our current situation) would he or she be liable to being PIed? Would he or she have to get the CoS amended to allow for such an addition? If that is done aren't future president's bound to do the same? We can trust this person playing our save but we can't trust him or her to format the very instruction thread that he or she must use! This is just one little iota of the things we'll have to deal with once we start work on the CoL and CoS.

So, my constitutional proposal is still on the table.
It is in this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1351155#post1351155) in this very thread. It does not say we cannot have a CoS nor does it say we have to have one. Can we agree on that part of my proposal and debate the fate of the CoS later?

I like donsig's proposals for the preamble and Articles A & B. I think Article C should stay as is.

donsig indicates in his proposal (in regards to Article C) that Articles D, E, and F dealing with the details of the three branches should be left to the CoL. I won't comment here because those Articles our outside the scope of this thread. We can discuss their inclusion or exclusion in the constitution in another thread tasked to discuss those Articles.

Hehe, I'm confusing my constitutions and actually proposed a version of article C that is no different from the one already in place! :rolleyes: :lol: :D

I am fine with us not naming the CoS in our Constitution until we are sure it will be there. At this time, however, I would rather work on defining legal concepts than wording the minutae of our Constitution, seeing that the former will take the most work. I know that the Constitution should be drafted first but I am not going to wait to address other issues, some of which may change how we word our Constitution. As a matter of fact, I have no problem with you or Cyc or DaveShack running any threads dealing with the Constitution at this time.

As far as my plans for the Three Books:

3 levels of laws = 3 levels of punishment = 3 paths to change

Of course, the Constitution would be the toughest to change and the CoS the easiest. Also, an affront to our Constitution would carry a much stiffer penalty than a CoS misstep(most likely only a warning, if anything, for these offenses). Our CoL would contain all of the pertinent laws regarding these matters.

As far as subjecting leaders to a bit of protocol backed by the CoS, I don't think there is anything wrong with listing suggested procedure.

Quoting DZ:
As far as subjecting leaders to a bit of protocol backed by the CoS, I don't think there is anything wrong with listing suggested procedure.

I agree with this statement. I also think donsig's comment about the "1st post" (obviuosly of the TCI thread) was way off base. If we went to the trouble of writing a Standard for the TCI, we wouldn't limit it by just putting those two lines in. It would also say something like "the TCI will have a minimum of these items in the first post...."

Originally posted by Cyc
Quoting DZ:
As far as subjecting leaders to a bit of protocol backed by the CoS, I don't think there is anything wrong with listing suggested procedure.

I agree with this statement. I also think donsig's comment about the "1st post" (obviuosly of the TCI thread) was way off base. If we went to the trouble of writing a Standard for the TCI, we wouldn't limit it by just putting those two lines in. It would also say something like "the TCI will have a minimum of these items in the first post...."

Well, Cyc, I quoted straight from the old CoS. That's all it says regarding the first post of the TCI. My point is that if we make a list of procedures that is not part of the constitution nor Code of Laws - and therefore not subject to PIs then we don't have to wait to start DG4 until we write all this stuff. Going line by line down the CoL and Cos will take a long time. Subjecting leaders to protocol is fine so long as it does not stifle innovations that may well make the game better. Do we really want to be so *restrictive* that we cannot easily try new ideas?

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I am fine with us not naming the CoS in our Constitution until we are sure it will be there. At this time, however, I would rather work on defining legal concepts than wording the minutae of our Constitution, seeing that the former will take the most work. I know that the Constitution should be drafted first but I am not going to wait to address other issues, some of which may change how we word our Constitution. As a matter of fact, I have no problem with you or Cyc or DaveShack running any threads dealing with the Constitution at this time.

If we decide it going to be there why do we have to name it in the constitution? Leave reference to it out, don't demand it or forbid it, write the constitution and go on to the Code of Laws. You can't do this in circles: start the constitution, then start the CoL- which is supposed to define the constitution - then change the con to match the CoL, etc. You have to have the con first. i agree that it would be nice to have all the general principles down before that, but when we can't, let's generalize the con and move on. This way we don't have to come back and change the con no matter which way we go on the general principles to be decided.

So, is there concensus that my proposal (which does include the points raised earlier) is acceptable? Can we finalize this part of the con?

donsig,

Love your proposal! Exactly the way it should be written - defines the boundaries in non-specific terms. It allows us to create any structure we want, so long as the Constitution remains the primary source of law.

Note to self - you actually agreed with donsig in a legal discussion. Call pshrink for appointment. :D

-- Ravensfire

I agree that the Constitution needs to be fully defined first.

My thoughts are that while yes, the Code of Laws (or whatever name we use) does indeed explain the clauses of the constitution, they themselves are completely driven by that superior document.

Finally, I don't think we should specifically say there will be a CoL and CoS in the constitution. We may still have that, but I think it would be wrong to lock that in. We should say that there will be a CoL, and if we decide later to further use CoS, then the CoL can define what the CoS rules are.

Donsig's proposal works OK for me. I have no preference for preamble wording, and in general each body of law should state it can be further defined by a lower body of law which does not contradict itself, so article B also is acceptable. This does not prevent a 3rd level of law, it would just need to be specified in the 2nd level. In concrete terms, the Constitution should allow for the CoL but doesn't necessarily have to name it, and the CoL may allow for a CoS but the Constitution does not need to name a 3rd level.

Suggested poll:

Should we ratify the following constitutional preamble and articles?

We, the people of Fanatica, 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 an equal 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 citizens.

Article A: All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country. 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 seek to redress grievances and the right to vote.

Article B: Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so.

Article C: The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Poll choices:
Yes
No
Abstain

Poll will be open for (insert time here).

(Link to discussion thread here.)

donsig,

Suggested poll looks good to me - no surprise there. I would suggest a time frame of 4 days for the poll, to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote.

-- Ravensfire

There's no qualms here. It's nice and flexible, and that'll allow for smaller changes as we need them.

I would like to point out that a vote on donsig's proposed poll (or anything similar) should define these articles for the proposed DG4 constitution, but does not actually "ratify" them. The entire constitution should be presented for another ratification vote sometime in December.

I disagree DaveShack. Let's ratify these articles now. Donovan Zoi has those sticky threads to track progress and everything is still red. Unless we actually lock something down and firm it up (by ratifying or whatever term you want to use) we will never see any progress.

You are welcome to submit your own proposed poll here so we can get this moving along...

I disagree as well. As far as I am concerned, DG4 already has a constitution, CoL, and CoS. What we are doing here is proposing changes and voting to ratify those changes.

I have some concerns with locking the constitution in piecemeal like this.

People who know the game will be starting Jan '04 may not even show up until December, and I don't want them to be devoiced.
There is a chance (slight but nonzero) that articles worked on later in the process may be inconsistent with ones worked on early in the process.
Without a final ratification vote, we don't know when the amendment process takes effect.

The idea of a final ratification vote is meant to address these concerns. Changes prior to this vote should take a simple majority, changes after this vote should require the amendment process, whatever that is.

I would agree with DaveShack here, in that a citizen vote on the proposed Articles at this time would place the Article on the proposed Constitution to be ratified as a whole. Finalizing any potion of the document at this time may prove to be an embarassing mistake. If we get into December and realize some of the concrete Articles in this doc need to be changed, it will be much better if they had just been placed on the "proposed" slate.

Well, that makes a whole lot of sense. Let's hold off on making any decisions till later because any decision we make now might change because of decisions we will make later.

BTW, if you run for any position on the judiciary zorven, you've got my vote. You're the only one who has the guts to stand by decisions that are already made. I still think starting with the old DG2 rules was foolhardy but that's what was decided and as you so rightfully pointed out they are the current law of the land.

This is going to be a continuing problem, and one that I don't think we need to have.

I would propose that the following method be adopted.

1. Once each section of law is finalized, a summary of all changes to that section, and any other section is created. This summary is posted for 24 hours in the discussion thread.

2. A poll is then created, titled "Approval for section name", or some variant thereof. The usual stuff should be here, including a note that this poll is to approve this section, and and changes to previous sections as needed. This section may be altered by later sections of law. Once the Constitutional process is complete, a final version will be presented for Ratification by the People.

3. Poll runs for at least 72 hours (3 days)

Let's be up front with everyone, and say that this is what we have now, but future ideas MAY result in changes. This allows us to keep everyone involved by approving each section as we go, but not lock the verbage down until the end.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

Sorry, ravensfire, but I still disagree. What is the point of discussing things a section at a time if we're not going to make any decisions? For crying out loud even if we manage to agree on proposals for the constitution as a whole we still have issues to address that we're putting off till the CoL talks. Are you all sugesting that we not make any final decisions until we have all the rules written?

Has anyone else realized that most demogame players don't even like writing rules? There has not been a whole lot of people contributing here. Of course if there were many demogamers who did like making rules we wouldn't be doing this now because most serious issues would have been addressed in term three of DG3. Citizens as a whole would rather fight than write.

Originally posted by donsig
Sorry, ravensfire, but I still disagree. What is the point of discussing things a section at a time if we're not going to make any decisions? For crying out loud even if we manage to agree on proposals for the constitution as a whole we still have issues to address that we're putting off till the CoL talks. Are you all sugesting that we not make any final decisions until we have all the rules written?

Has anyone else realized that most demogame players don't even like writing rules? There has not been a whole lot of people contributing here. Of course if there were many demogamers who did like making rules we wouldn't be doing this now because most serious issues would have been addressed in term three of DG3. Citizens as a whole would rather fight than write.

donsig, I think you missed the point of what I was suggested. I want to get each section approved as we go, not as a whole at the end.

Once each section is done, poll it. Get everyone's approval of it. Call the section done. Don't lock it stone so tight that a good idea later on can't make a small change. But, MAKE THE DECISION - does THIS section look good?

Once everything is done, put the entire thing up for a "ratification" poll. It's pretty much a formality at that point, but we would then have a body of law that everyone has participated in, and approved in it's final form.

On your second comment - yes, I have noticed, continue to notice and don't really care. I avoid some discussions, other avoid this stuff. To each his own.

-- Ravensfire

Sorry, ravensfire, but I did understand your post and I still disagree with it. This does raise a nice little technical / legal question. What exactly are the rules we're following for making the rules? Is zorven's interpretation the valid one? If so, then any changes we make must be made within the rules already adopted. If not, then what criteria are we using to make and/or change laws?

Originally posted by donsig
Sorry, ravensfire, but I did understand your post and I still disagree with it. This does raise a nice little technical / legal question. What exactly are the rules we're following for making the rules? Is zorven's interpretation the valid one? If so, then any changes we make must be made within the rules already adopted. If not, then what criteria are we using to make and/or change laws?

Fair enough! :)

Good question.


We should continue as we currently are - starting at the top and working down. The three books are well-designed, generally starting with broad, general statements and getting more defined as you continue. We can go nuts trying to catch every detail affected farther down as we change rules.

In addition, our general guideline is that the DG4 laws are based on DG2 laws, with changes as deemed needed. We aren't working within the DG2 laws, we are working on them. Semantics, kindof. Call it a view point - we are not yet governed by the DG2 ruleset, we are using it as a starting point for DG4.

We should start with only the assumption that each section must be changed to remain consistent with previously accepted sections. We use the existing verbage as the starting point.

This requires us to remain consistent only with the sections we have discussed, not with future sections. Anything else would cause monstrous issues I'd prefer not to think about.


-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire

We should start with only the assumption that each section must be changed to remain consistent with previously accepted sections. We use the existing verbage as the starting point.


Would you mind explaing what you mean by previously accepted sections? Do you mean we can lock 'em down and move on or are you still advocating some sort of nebulous acceptance subject to revision later down the line?

Originally posted by donsig


Would you mind explaing what you mean by previously accepted sections? Do you mean we can lock 'em down and move on or are you still advocating some sort of nebulous acceptance subject to revision later down the line?

Previously accepted section:
Any section, of any body of law presented to the the citizens of Demogame 4 to accept or reject.


Sigh.

I'll say it again. There is NO WAY to absolutely lock down a section without placing future concepts under harsh conditions.

None. And that's not a good thing.

I think you feel I'm advocating that we can change any section we've already gone through on a whim. I'm not - far from it. I'm advocating that we allow ourselves some degree, and not much, of flexibility in the future to account for a good idea.

I don't what to continually rewrite sections that have been completed. I don't want people proposing ideas that significantly alter previous sections. I do want some small amount of flexibility so that we can make some tweaks if we need to.

I know, I know. What's a small tweak, how can you tell, blah, blah, blah. I'll fall back on the obscenity definition Justice Stweart used - "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . ." In this, as in many other matters, it is the active participants in this discussion who need to recognize when someone is attempting to materially alter a previous section, and when they are just trying to tweak the section.

It's a fine line, yes, I'm quite aware. I believe that any other method would cause more problems than it would solve.

That is, however, my opinion. I would ask you, and others, what is you answer to this vexing problem?

-- Ravensfire

donsig, let it go. Ravensfire is right, and you are just causing too many side issues and problems in dealing with this process to move forward. You would rather walk around in circles arguing over minute details than allowing the rest of the forum to achieve any goals. You have done this from the begining, STOP. Let the work that needs to get done get done. Quit bringing up cross reference type issues that are basically meaningless just so you can argue and tie up the process so nothing gets done. Sheesh!

Originally posted by Cyc
donsig, let it go. Ravensfire is right, and you are just causing too many side issues and problems in dealing with this process to move forward. You would rather walk around in circles arguing over minute details than allowing the rest of the forum to achieve any goals. You have done this from the begining, STOP. Let the work that needs to get done get done. Quit bringing up cross reference type issues that are basically meaningless just so you can argue and tie up the process so nothing gets done. Sheesh!

It's not me you need to tell to stop. I am trying to move ahead. It is you all who want to foot around and not do anything. It makes no sense what-so-ever to dilly-dally and not make any decisions. You don't want to lock things down and commit to anything but at the same time you don't want to discuss any of the so-called side issues that might lead us to actually make a decision.

Is it too much to ask exactly what proceedures we're to follow for this process?

The procedures, donsig have been laid out plainly infront of us all for some time now. DZ has stated what needs to be done and others have basically agreed on the process. We are changing the DG2 Con to fit our needs in DG4. We are doing it line by line of step by step of documents (Con and supporting books) we can approve the "re-writings" as we change them, and then ratify the Con and the other docs separately when we get ALL done. It's quite simple, you've done this before.

I must say, these extended debates over the first four articles of the constitution have caused me to succumb to some degree of apathy over this process. We have an entire ruleset to consider in the next month, let's poll this and move on.

Originally posted by Cyc
The procedures, donsig have been laid out plainly infront of us all for some time now. DZ has stated what needs to be done and others have basically agreed on the process. We are changing the DG2 Con to fit our needs in DG4. We are doing it line by line of step by step of documents (Con and supporting books) we can approve the "re-writings" as we change them, and then ratify the Con and the other docs separately when we get ALL done. It's quite simple, you've done this before.

So what's the problem? I've suggested a poll to approve the re-writings we've discussed for these articles. I guess I have to ask you the same question I asked ravensfire: what exactly do you mean when you say we can approve the "re-writings"? Can we nail them down or just give them a nebulous approval? I'll go further - if we're not nailing them down now but leaving everything opened ended until some future ratification of the whole, just how can we make any progress now? By refusing to make any decisions now we only postpone the arguments till later. Let's hash it out now and finalize something.

Boots, now you've realized the true reason of donsigism. To get everyone going around in circles or just plain quitting until there is very little time left. That of course is when donsig comes in and writes the rules. Our time to focus was a month ago, but because of all these meaningless arguements and side issues, we're now running out of time. Each day I just shake my head when I see the progress we haven't made. We'll probably think of 6 other important things to talk about before we get around to finalizing the Preamble and the first 3 Articles.

Originally posted by donsig


So what's the problem? I've suggested a poll to approve the re-writings we've discussed for these articles. I guess I have to ask you the same question I asked ravensfire: what exactly do you mean when you say we can approve the "re-writings"? Can we nail them down or just give them a nebulous approval? I'll go further - if we're not nailing them down now but leaving everything opened ended until some future ratification of the whole, just how can we make any progress now? By refusing to make any decisions now we only postpone the arguments till later. Let's hash it out now and finalize something.

donsig, Ravensfire really did lay that out for you in an easy to understand format. Just go back and reread what he said until you do understand it. I believe you're still missing the point.

Originally posted by Cyc
Boots, now you've realized the true reason of donsigism. To get everyone going around in circles or just plain quitting until there is very little time left. That of course is when donsig comes in and writes the rules. Our time to focus was a month ago, but because of all these meaningless arguements and side issues, we're now running out of time. Each day I just shake my head when I see the progress we haven't made. We'll probably think of 6 other important things to talk about before we get around to finalizing the Preamble and the first 3 Articles.

I guess I am missing the point Cyc old friend. I suggested a poll to finalize the preamble and first three articles. No one has suggested anything new to talk about - important or otherwise - yet we do not move to finalize this section of the constitution. Do you agree that we should finalize these sections and move on? If so do you think the poll I suggested is ok or do you have an alternate poll you'd like to propose?

Originally posted by ravensfire


Previously accepted section:
Any section, of any body of law presented to the the citizens of Demogame 4 to accept or reject.


Sigh.

I'll say it again. There is NO WAY to absolutely lock down a section without placing future concepts under harsh conditions.

None. And that's not a good thing.

I think you feel I'm advocating that we can change any section we've already gone through on a whim. I'm not - far from it. I'm advocating that we allow ourselves some degree, and not much, of flexibility in the future to account for a good idea.

-- Ravensfire

The time to worry about future concepts has long past. We tried that in DG3, remember? You all decided you wanted a restrictive ruleset. So start writing. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a restrictive ruleset and still leave flexibility for good ideas that crop up.

Perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement and move things along if you could explicitly define the degree of flexibility you want.

donsig,

I'll repeat my question that you carefully avoided: what answer do you propose to the problem you raised?

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by donsig


The time to worry about future concepts has long past. We tried that in DG3, remember? You all decided you wanted a restrictive ruleset. So start writing. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a restrictive ruleset and still leave flexibility for good ideas that crop up.

Perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement and move things along if you could explicitly define the degree of flexibility you want.

Talk about mixing concepts here ...

Okay, I'll try to explain this clearly, again. I have no idea where you got this restrictive ruleset stuff from.

My proposal deals ONLY with the process we are currently going through. BTW - that would be the "Create the Constitution" process, just to make sure there are no misunderstandings. As a People, we have decided to import the DG2 ruleset over, then review each section to see if we want any changes.

Still following me? Good. As part of this process, we may, MAY, in the course of reviewing a section, determine that we need a small tweak in a section we have already discussed. Rather than lock down a section totally, I'm suggesting we approve each section, but allow for future discussion to make minor tweaks in those sections. I don't want to allow wholesale replacement of sections that we've already discussed. To keep a process moving, you need to limit the ability to revisit old decisions, but without completely blocking the ability to tweak them.

This is nothing about restrictive vs permissive. That may be your pet peeve, too bad. The DG3 ruleset is not happening for this game - deal with it.

Further, your comment about "You cannot have a restrictive ruleset and still leave flexibility for good ideas that crop up" is pure garbage as you well know. Last time I checked, there is nothing in our current ruleset (based on DG2) that prohibts someone from proposing a good idea, and Shock! Amazement! it might actually get passed!

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by donsig

Perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement and move things along if you could explicitly define the degree of flexibility you want.

Done - look at post #44.

Here's the summary:
(note - this is for each section in document)

1. Determine the section to review
2. Determine if section is to be changed. If no, go to
3. Determine new wording of section
4. Review previous sections for contradictions
5. Post poll asking for People to approve current section

Once all sections have been reviewed, post Approval poll for document

Once all documents have been reviewed, post Ratification poll for ruleset.

That's my outline - the key part is that we are allowed to make minor changes to previous sections, but only minor changes.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
donsig,

I'll repeat my question that you carefully avoided: what answer do you propose to the problem you raised?

-- Ravensfire

What problem have I raised? I proposed a poll to nail down an agreemant on the preamble and articles A, B and C. I am working with in the system you all set up. Donovan Zoi posted sticky threads (progress thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68036) ) to track our progress, stating (and I quote)

The idea here is to either confirm or replace all text in red. New laws or standards confirmed by either unanimous discussion or conclusive poll will be adopted, after which progress will be tracked by changing the passage to black text.

Does this not imply that we would attack this piecemeal? Does this not imply that we would finalize the documents a little at a time? What am I missing here guys?

DaveShack is the one who raised the problem. He is the one who said I have some concerns with locking the constitution in piecemeal like this. Ask him how to solve the problem, not me.

All I can do is repeat my proposed poll for that is the solution I see to moving forward with this mess!

Suggested poll:

Should we ratify the following constitutional preamble and articles?

We, the people of Fanatica, 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 an equal 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 citizens.

Article A: All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country. 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 seek to redress grievances and the right to vote.

Article B: Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so.

Article C: The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Poll choices:
Yes
No
Abstain

Poll will be open for (insert time here).

Originally posted by donsig


I guess I am missing the point Cyc old friend. I suggested a poll to finalize the preamble and first three articles. No one has suggested anything new to talk about - important or otherwise - yet we do not move to finalize this section of the constitution. Do you agree that we should finalize these sections and move on? If so do you think the poll I suggested is ok or do you have an alternate poll you'd like to propose?

(Note - sorry for the spamming)

donsig,

Despite all of this, I like your proposal, like the poll proposal, and strongly suggest you post it.

All of this discussion appears to be about one concern - can future discussion alter sections that have been approved, if so how much.

Ignoring that, I do hope you poll this one so we can move on. This gives us a great start.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by donsig


What problem have I raised?

donsig,

As I said, I have no problems with the poll and proposal - quite like 'em. The problem(s) I'm referring to is from post #41 and #43.

These:


Would you mind explaing what you mean by previously accepted sections? Do you mean we can lock 'em down and move on or are you still advocating some sort of nebulous acceptance subject to revision later down the line?


and


This does raise a nice little technical / legal question. What exactly are the rules we're following for making the rules? Is zorven's interpretation the valid one? If so, then any changes we make must be made within the rules already adopted. If not, then what criteria are we using to make and/or change laws?


-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


Done - look at post #44.

-- Ravensfire

Please look up the word explicitly. You might find that the old *I can't define it but I know it when I see it* is not explicit. Without an explicit definition of what changes can be made - and how they can be made - we run the risk of ending up fighting over proposed changes. What I see as a minor change may not seem so minor to you or someone else.

What is it you all want in order for us to have some agreement here?

@ravensfire: My answer to the *problems* you noted (posts #41 and #43) is that we get our ducks in a row for each section (as we seem to have done here), poll for acceptance and lock those sections down if they are accepted as shown by the poll. Once accepted we don't look back. Any tweaking can be done through whatever amendment or law passing procedure we come up with - but the tweaking can wait till the game starts.

What can we possible want to change in the preamble and first three articles that we haven't already discussed?!? Let's write this section and move on!!!!!

I concur. Let's light this candle!

Sorry, got a little carried away there. But donsig is correct. Can we please, please, please either agree on the wording of this section or at least summarize the choices so that they can be polled.

I call for the question.

Second the call!

The verbage is great - the issue donsig and I are discussing is completely unrelated to this, it's a procedural question that may never be needed (or resolved!)

-- Ravensfire

The poll was called and seconded and has been posted here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69999) :hammer: