Our current Article G based upon the DG2 Constitution:


G. All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

I think we should keep this one as is.

This one is a defenate Keeper :D

I agree that this should apply to all "leader" positions. But should we re-word it so that we can have flexibility to define how positions of deputies and other offices can be filled. Those positions could be defined in the CoL rather than here. We might make all deputies filled by elections, but lets put some flexibility here.

Err, I would rather not. I dont think we should separate Deputies and Leaders. I beleve Article G should be kept the way it is.

I think what zorven is getting at is that if Article G remains worded as-is, leaders technically would not have the right to appoint deputies.

However, the more I think about it, the more I agree with the current wording. I don't think that deputies need to be mentioned in the Constitution, and I think we can further define the process in the CoL.

DZ - if we leave the current wording, I could interpret it to mean that all positions need to be elected: leaders, deputies, election office, mayors, etc. I think we should expliciity state that leaders (we may have to list them or come up with a definition within the document) fall under this article without mentioning any other positions. Then we can deal with those other positions in the CoL.

Keep this as is. As mentioned, put in a list if needed. I dont think ANY of us want to see monthly elections for mayors et all. Leaders should get a definition (of course, pending the pool on goverment size)

As currently written, "position" could extend all the way to dogcatcher. I agree, the exact positions which are subject to this article need to be spelled out.

I think that we should still conduct a poll on this issue with some other potential ideas.

Status Quo
Removal of Article - remove this in favor of branch-specific term durations (ie. 1 month for Exec, 45 days for Legislature, 2 months for Judiciary).
Turn based Terms - replace the duration with turn-based durations instead of calendar-based.

We should do this to settle this issue officially, once and for all.

I'll concur with 40J.

With the "Leaders", I think we could provide further definitions in the CoL. The Constitution should use broad terms, allowing the lower levels of law to fill in the details.

With this in mind, I think the current article should stand, pending any change from the time vs turn poll.

-- Ravensfire

I have one thing to say. I am against turn based turns. This is not the MSDG. This is the SPDG. I beleve that all leaders should have a term of One Calender Month

One month has always worked right and it will continue to do so.

I am for status quo on the term length. As for this article, we should probably replace it with something like "all leader positions must be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month."

Sounds good to me, Boots.

@Forty, turn-based terms was defeated pretty handily in a recent informational poll. I would rather have it removed from the list of options the lessen the likeliness of a re-poll.

Also, I personally would rather have all elections at once, but would consider the possibility of retaining the judicial positions for two terms. This, of course, would change Boots' wording somewhat.

I wouldn't be opposed to having judicial positions run for two terms, but I'm not really in favor of it either. I do think that we shouldn't repoll turn-based terms; I'd say we should consider that issue decided and make a decision on whether we should have two-month Judicial terms (or go with Oct's proposal from some time ago or a derivative).

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I am for status quo on the term length. As for this article, we should probably replace it with something like "all leader positions must be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month."

I like this wording better,but I can't help but see a problem. Under one interpretation of this any vacancy would have to be filled by a specific election. That is a deputy would not be able to assume the job. How about wording like:

"All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month."

Then we can define the elected positions and address vacancies and absent leaders in the CoL.

For definistion's sake, it's likely we should rewrite that article to include info about appointments/deputies.

Strictly speaking, a "term of one calendar month" means one month from the date the election closes. What we really want is:

All leaders are elected to a term which starts upon closure of the election poll, and ends on the last day of the month. The effective time of the start of the term for regular elections is 1201AM Forum Time.

DaveShack - are you saying it should say terms start at the end of elections? What if we change the election schedule as has been discussed to include time between the end of elections and the beginning of the month? I think if you want to get more specific in this area it should go in the CoL.

Question for the legal scholars amongst us.

Can we keep this section pretty much as it is, and place the absenteeism/deputy and interim position stuff in the CoL?

I think that we can, both from a "framer's intent" and from the general structure we've been following.

-- Ravensfire

"All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month."

Bingo, zorven. The election process and all that follows can be defined in the CoL. This wording will allow us to pursue any number of possibilities in our CoL without running afoul of our Constitution. The current wording is much more restrictive.

Ravensfire, I hope this answers your question as well. Let's modify the current wording slightly so that all these concepts are possible.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

Ravensfire, I hope this answers your question as well. Let's modify the current wording slightly so that all these concepts are possible.

Yup - it does. Just to make sure everyone notices, it does imply that mid-term vacancies will not be filled by election, but by some other means (which I greatly prefer!).

-- Ravensfire

I like this too, and agree with Ravensfire about mid-term vacancies.

I think that this article is good as is, because mid term vacancies, deputies, etc... are not currently filled by an election. Election is the key word in that sentence.

@Bill - The reason for our current struggle with this article stemmed from an incident where both the leader and his deputy resigned within a matter of days. It was then ruled by our Chief Justice that the third place vote-getter was entitled to the office, since "all offices" were "to be filled via election." Incidentally, deputies technically gain their position "via election," as they are the second-place vote-getter. I would like to phrase this Article carefully so that we are free to draft laws that will keep this type of incident from ever happening again.

So far, the best I have seen is from zorven. But I am still very interested in your opinion on this. :)

Ahhh, good follow up information. I find that ruling to be an interesting one, but certainly expedient.

Yes, and considering we only had a Constitution(no CoL) at the time, I do not blame the CJ at all.

Since it is my full intention to have a working CoL this game, my goal here is to broaden the scope of this article so that we are not hitting a brick wall when the time comes to write some laws.

Originally posted by zorven
DaveShack - are you saying it should say terms start at the end of elections? What if we change the election schedule as has been discussed to include time between the end of elections and the beginning of the month? I think if you want to get more specific in this area it should go in the CoL.

well, I'm really trying to say that we should spell out that terms end at the end of the month, no matter when in the month an election is held. A strict interpretation of a term being a month could say that someone elected the 15th in a special election should stay in office until the next 15th.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
@Bill - The reason for our current struggle with this article stemmed from an incident where both the leader and his deputy resigned within a matter of days. It was then ruled by our Chief Justice that the third place vote-getter was entitled to the office, since "all offices" were "to be filled via election." Incidentally, deputies technically gain their position "via election," as they are the second-place vote-getter. I would like to phrase this Article carefully so that we are free to draft laws that will keep this type of incident from ever happening again.

So far, the best I have seen is from zorven. But I am still very interested in your opinion on this. :)

DZ - I think a major factor (as you point out in another post) is that the court was acting with an absence of framework at that point. There was no defined line of succession, so the court was forced to create one. Given the circumstances, and the need for a quick replacement ...

By addressing this in the CoL, we will be able to define the process as we see fit. 'Course, this could have been done in DG3 ... Oh wait, that's over. Gotta break that soapbox up for firewood!

I would like to see this article remain a broad statement, basically requiring elections for leader positions. The line of succession can be defined in the CoL.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by DaveShack


well, I'm really trying to say that we should spell out that terms end at the end of the month, no matter when in the month an election is held. A strict interpretation of a term being a month could say that someone elected the 15th in a special election should stay in office until the next 15th.

What if we defined special elections in the CoL?

I'm envisioning something like this:

Constitution: "Leaders elected to a fixed term"
-- Very brief, very general

CoL:
Elections:
-- Leaders elected to a one month term, beginning on the first day of the month and ending on the last day of that month.
-- Leaders appointed through interim appointments or elections serve a partial term, ending on the last day of the month they are confirmed in the office.

In the Con (difficult to change, etc), we say that leaders are elected to fixed terms. We have established the legal background for both the election and for the fixed term. We then, in the CoL (easier to change) define the fixed term as one month, and add an exeption for mid-term special elections and appointments. Note that I consider the raising of a deputy to the full office an appointment.

-- Ravensfire

I think Ravensfire's proposal is on track. How about:

"Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

I still think we need to either define Leaders or list the leaders this section applies to. I would prefer a list of definitions in the Constitution or in the CoL. We would just need to make sure that those terms defined are used apporpriately throughout the Constitution and CoL.

Originally posted by zorven
I still think we need to either define Leaders or list the leaders this section applies to. I would prefer a list of definitions in the Constitution or in the CoL. We would just need to make sure that those terms defined are used apporpriately throughout the Constitution and CoL.

Could we define the list of leaders, and other election procedures, in the CoL and/or CoS? I would prefer the list to be in the CoL. I think we could put the election procedures in the third book, but that's a future discussion.

A glossary is not a bad idea as a reference. For those not familiar with it, part of the reason legalese seems so arcane is various words have certain, very specific definitions. Providing a list of the terms we use, and their meanings, could help prevent problems.

Fine, fine. I'll start on one, but will only update it as sections are ratified by the citizens.

-- Ravensfire

Let's poll this, please. With the options we've discussed here, this is not going to be a difficult decision. This one's not rocket science and we can always change it later, if we need to.

Current list of poll options:


Status Quo "All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month. "
Removal of article, each branch specifies procedures
"Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."


Unless I hear that I missed an option, I plan to post a poll in about 6 hours.

-- Ravensfire

How about this one:

All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

Taken straight from the DG3 constitution (a great document, I might add).

Since *fixed terms* can be based on the real calender or turns we don't have to resume the calender versus turn based debate here.

Yes, deputies would still have to be elected but it is a democracy game after all. :rolleyes:

There are ways to fill vacant deputy and leader positions without resorting to appointments.

@ donsig - I could swear I already had a post in this thread saying this, but here is the problem: "all offices". Does this mean the cartography office? the election office? the chat office? etc. This is why I suggested "Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law"

Originally posted by zorven
@ donsig - I could swear I already had a post in this thread saying this, but here is the problem: "all offices". Does this mean the cartography office? the election office? the chat office? etc. This is why I suggested "Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law"

No, it does not include offices such as those you mentioned. No matter which way we go we have to define something. Do we want to define leaders or offices?

Whichever way we go it boils down to the posting of game play instructions. In order to post legal and valid game play instructions a person should have been elected to a previously determined fixed length term and that person should be eligible to post game play instructions through only that one position.

I agree with donsig, the term "position", "leader", etc... should only apply to areas and jobs outlined in the laws.

Ok, I think the intent shown by some of you is this:

"All offices so designated by the legislature shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

And now that I read that, I wonder why even have it in the Constitution. Everything of substance is being left to the CoL and that makes this statement pointless.

Originally posted by zorven
Ok, I think the intent shown by some of you is this:

"All offices so designated by the legislature shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

And now that I read that, I wonder why even have it in the Constitution. Everything of substance is being left to the CoL and that makes this statement pointless.

That is not my intent zorven. My intent is that if someone is to be allowed to post game play instructions then that person should be elected to a fixed term. Any officer who is not allowed to post game play instructions (as far as I'm concerned) does not have to be elected.

Now, we are still stuck with the deputy problem. Say we have no deputy domestic leader. Someone appoints one. The domestic leader leaves and the appointed deputy takes over. In my book that deputy was never elected. I want to avoid that sort of thing. So if I suggest:

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

It seems I'm opening the door for appointments because technically deputies can't post game play instructions. Or can they? We're back to the old problem of when can a deputy step up to the plate...

My solution to the problem is to allow candidates to pick a deputy and even a third stringer before the election and elect the whole slate. (Disclaimer: the use of the word *slate* in no way endorses the idea of political parties.) I hesitate to bring this whole thing up for fear of being accused of causing delays due to sidetracks but how this article is worded will determine whether appointments will be allowed. I also hesitate (for the same reasons) to point out that some of us think that there should be only one national office held per person while others think it is ok for someone to simultaneously hold leader/deputy positions and/or multiple deputy positions. We should be mindful of these debates and craft this article accordingly.

@donsig: As I said in the Article G thread: what if we never empower justices or deputies? Then they would not be covered by this article. I am tempted to say we should just either list the positions covered by Articles G & H or specifically say that the positions covered by these articles will be defined by the legislature. Then we can stop debating about semantics.

Originally posted by zorven
@donsig: As I said in the Article G thread: what if we never empower justices or deputies? Then they would not be covered by this article. I am tempted to say we should just either list the positions covered by Articles G & H or specifically say that the positions covered by these articles will be defined by the legislature. Then we can stop debating about semantics.

Sorry in advance for the sarcasm but it is tired and this whole process is irritating.

But why don't we get off the pot and make a fundamental decision or three? Why don't we decide if there will be any times when a justice can post a game play instruction? Why don't we decide the role of deputies? Why don't we decide if we ever ant to use appointments to fill vacancies? Without answers to these questions we can only write useless constitutional articles as you seem to realize.

I could be way off, but I think that many folks here do not want to go into too much detail because they want to save their efforts for the CoL. They are hoping to draft as loose an Article as possible, so that we are free to write the laws as we wish.

I must admit, I haven't caught up in this thread yet. So I will go through it tomorrow and see if we can start making progress.

Woah - hold on folks. Too much vitriol suddenly appearing, and really for nothing.

From reading through this, everyone is saying the same thing, just in a different way.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the intent of what people are wanting, is that we wish to restrict anyone in an office to which we elect a person to a fixed term.

Okay, excluding all discussion about deputies and mid-term appointments, how should this read? I'm saying exclude them, because I hope to cover them in the CoL. At that point, we can explicity restrict deputies/mid-term appointments/etc to anything we want.

But, for this discussion, let's ignore that complication, and get the basic situation nailed down.

-- Ravensfire

I think the problem is writing the text in such a way that it does not explicitly or implicitly include or exclude deputies / mid-term appointments / etc.

Originally posted by ravensfire
Woah - hold on folks. Too much vitriol suddenly appearing, and really for nothing.

From reading through this, everyone is saying the same thing, just in a different way.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the intent of what people are wanting, is that we wish to restrict anyone in an office to which we elect a person to a fixed term.

Okay, excluding all discussion about deputies and mid-term appointments, how should this read? I'm saying exclude them, because I hope to cover them in the CoL. At that point, we can explicity restrict deputies/mid-term appointments/etc to anything we want.

But, for this discussion, let's ignore that complication, and get the basic situation nailed down.

-- Ravensfire

OK, I will try to correct you. The gist of my point is that I do not want any mid-term appointments! I do not want any beginning or end term appointments either! What I want is for anyone (ANYONE) who is going to be empowered to post game play instructions to be elected (read: not appointed). This includes deputies and justices for I think they should be empowered (under certain circumstances) to post game play instructions.

I understand that some things should be left to the CoL. But some decisions must be made if we are to write a constitution that has any meaning. I understand we only want general things in the constitution but to do so we have to at least come to agreement or make some decisions on some general things. The first general decision to make is should we allow appointments to offices that could potentially post game play instructions.

We cannot put everything off to the CoL. That document is supposed to define the general principle we elucidate in our constitution. Let's make some general principles so we can write our constitution. please.

donsig,

I understand where you are coming from. However, you are misinterpreting some of the things I'm saying.

First, I'm trying really hard not to get into how deputies or vacant offices are handled. There are enough things going on right now.

Second, and this is my fault, you are getting the wrong impression when I'm saying "appointed". Think of it as a short way of saying "a person who takes over the responsibilities and duties of an office for any reason, by any designated means." My intention was to use a non-specific term because I don't want to talk about filling vacant offices right now. It's a process that we have to deal with, yes. If that's a topic that we must deal with now, then we need to stop all discussion on this one and bounce over to that. And when we're done, we should still have generic terms in the Constitution because the process of filling a vacant office belongs in the CoL only, not in the Con.

I understand your point about allowing elected officials being the only ones posting instructions. Do you understand the point I'm trying to make?

-- Ravensfire

I'm wondering if you people realize just how insane this is. Yesterday we were real close to polling the ideas at hand. I made the mistake of telling you people that this was not rocket science, so you immediately set out to make it rocket science. donsig even broke out his donsigism toolkit to discombobulate the discussion. :lol: now you've taken the discussion on the mound and moved it out into left field. donsig and zorven and maybe others have proposed good alternatives to the original yesterday. Poll them and be done with it. skip this crap about posting legal instructions donsig, unless you think we have time to define Legal Instructions and then move onto several other lengthy discussions before we come back here and figure out a one sentance Article. :rolleyes:

This is almost too absurd to comment on. But I thought I would try to reel you people back in before you went off the deep end.

No, wait, maybe before we should poll this we should talk about the World Series, or the weather, or some other important thing before we figure out how to write a one sentance Article.

Poll this sucker now.

Remember the K.I.S.S. Rule.

Keep it simple silly ;).

I've forgotten what this article is about. :crazyeye:

It's about rocket science, 40J. You see, according to some theories, not the least of of which is.... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cyc
It's about rocket science, 40J. You see, according to some theories, not the least of of which is.... :roll eyes:

:lol: Thanks for the laugh, and the reminder guys.

Okay, reset. List of current proposals:

Status Quo "All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month. "
Removal of article, each branch specifies procedures
Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.
All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.
All offices so designated by the legislature shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.
All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

Shall we just poll them all, then put the top three in a run-off?

-- Ravensfire

I think all constitutional articles should be ratified by a majority vote, so if none of these options receives more than 50% of the vote, I'd prefer to see a run-off between the top 2.

Originally posted by Cyc
...skip this crap about posting legal instructions donsig, unless you think we have time to define Legal Instructions and then move onto several other lengthy discussions before we come back here and figure out a one sentance Article. :rolleyes:


I have not been talking about legal instructions Cyc. We will of course be tackling that subject when we work on the CoL. I have only been talking about the posting of game play instructions as a way to distinguish which *offices* I think should be elected. Any office whose holder is not entitled to post game play instructions does not have to be elected. There are ramifications concerning deputies and judiciary members if we use this criteria. These ramifications should be addressed here as they are general in nature. We need to decide on these general issues, write the article based on those general decisions and then move on to the CoL.

What we should not do is dance around these questions or ignore them, write a meaningless article then write the CoL, then re-write the article to match the CoL.

Three questions to answer:

1) Will we allow appointments? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70672)
2) Will we allow justices to step in and post game play instructions (under circumstances to be defined later in the CoL)?
3) Will we allow deputies to post game play instructions (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70674) (under circumstances to be defined later in the CoL)?

Am I really asking too much to get answers to these questions now? Are we planning to address these quesitons in writing the CoL or are we just going to leave them unanswered?

Yes, donsig. You are asking too much. Those questions have nothing to do with an Article in the Constitution about our Leaders being elected to a fix Term. Even if you feel they are closely related, the truth of the matter is the are subsequent issues that belong in the CoL. They are tidbits of information that belong in some Law book.

Of course we're planning on addressing these issuesin the writing of the CoL. Relax, go have a beer. It's OK...

Beer?

Did someone say beer? Beer is good. Is there anything it can't do?

donsig, Cyc is right. Your questions are valid, but not for this discussion. They need to be asked for the CoL. I have the utmost faith that you will bring them up and we'll have a nice discussion about them.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc
Yes, donsig. You are asking too much. Those questions have nothing to do with an Article in the Constitution about our Leaders being elected to a fix Term. Even if you feel they are closely related, the truth of the matter is the are subsequent issues that belong in the CoL. They are tidbits of information that belong in some Law book.

Of course we're planning on addressing these issuesin the writing of the CoL. Relax, go have a beer. It's OK...

What you seem not to realize Cyc is that these questions should be answered sooner or later. If you all refuse to address them now they will be asked again when we work on the CoL. By answering them now we will save a whole heck of alot of time when working on the CoL. By laying out the general idea in this article we will be able to zero in on the specifics when writing the CoL. By leaving the questions unanswered we're just postponing the debate till later. Heck, we could even ignore these questions when writing the CoL but then they'll just crop up during the game and cause problems. Then we will have failed here because the whole point of this seemingly futile effort is to get rules in place so we can play a demogame without fighting over the rules!

I will post discussion threads on these questions in the hope that we can work our way towards an actual decision on these questions. Such decisions will be beneficial in writing both these articles and the CoL.

donsig, please wait until we are ready to discuss the CoL. We are trying to go about this in a uniform manner to reduce clutter and confusion. I realize these two things can be a strong point in your debate style, but please...stick with the game plan here. We need to work as a team.

Originally posted by Cyc
donsig, please wait until we are ready to discuss the CoL. We are trying to go about this in a uniform manner to reduce clutter and confusion. I realize these two things can be a strong point in your debate style, but please...stick with the game plan here. We need to work as a team.

Cyc, the game plan is to write the constitution to lay out some general principles that we'd like to adhere to, then write the CoL to give those principles some meat. We cannot write up general principles if we do not decide what they are. You are the one who is not following the game plan. You want to rush through a meaningless constitution then write the CoL, deciding the specifics and guiding principles at that time.

It is not inappropriate to decide NOW whether we want elected or appointed leaders.

Somebody just tell me when this thing is over so I can go back to having fun in this forum.

Originally posted by donsig


Cyc, the game plan is to write the constitution to lay out some general principles that we'd like to adhere to, then write the CoL to give those principles some meat. We cannot write up general principles if we do not decide what they are. You are the one who is not following the game plan. You want to rush through a meaningless constitution then write the CoL, deciding the specifics and guiding principles at that time.

It is not inappropriate to decide NOW whether we want elected or appointed leaders.

For the purposes of THIS article, what is the general principle then?

No - I don't care about deputies. I don't care how they are determined. It doesn't matter for right now.

Everyone here is wanting the same blasted thing. At the end of a fixed time period, all elected officials are removed from office, allowing a new set of officials to take over.

That's it. This discussion has gotten way out of hand with talk of deputies,mid-term replacements, vacancies, appointments, etc. I'm responsible for some of it.

But it's not relevant to this decision.

We've got a list of options. I propose that we poll that list, then the top 2 in a run-off.

-- Ravensfire

I thought you already did that...;)

Originally posted by ravensfire

Everyone here is wanting the same blasted thing. At the end of a fixed time period, all elected officials are removed from office, allowing a new set of officials to take over.

-- Ravensfire

I will try one more time...

Now we do not all want the same blasted thing. I want to know if this article is going to once and for all keep us from appointing officals mid-term. No one wants to talk about that now. I see no point in delaying the discussin and decision on this general principle until we write the CoL. I want this article to be worded so that we will not have appointments.

donsig think about it like this. If the big guy was writing a "Book of Life" and he wrote a one line Article about men and women getting maried. He would probably say something like ~

"And men and women will pledge their love to each other in a bond of marriage until death does part them."

He wouldn't put something in this book that looks like this ~

"And men and women will pledge their love to each other in a bond of marriage until death does part them, unless something happens one day where they will get divorced, and then there is the matter of child custody and support, in which case we will then figure out who gets the house...""

That's very helpful Cyc. I never would have thought about it in that context. So, how would the Big Guy write this article? Would it forbid appointed positions or not? :confused:

Wow, the wheels go round and round.

Where, oh where is the relevance of worrying about appointing officials when we are discussing the length of an term? Explain that, donsig. Please.

You have tried, and tried, and failed to demonstrate in any way the relevance, or importance of even thinking about that issue at this point in time. Is there a single other person who is concerned about your issue relevant to this discussion about Article G?

Tell me, assume that all vacant offices must be filled by an election, what will Article G look like. Then, assume that all vacant office must be filled by appointments, what will Article G look like.

Stalemates belong in chess, but we've managed to come to one here.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by donsig
That's very helpful Cyc. I never would have thought about it in that context. So, how would the Big Guy write this article? Would it forbid appointed positions or not? :confused:

*Cyc grabs the 2 X 4 and whacks donsig a good one. Now Cyc has donsig's complete attention...*

He would probably write it like one of the proposed one line Articles that we are now considering, donsig. To continue using the same analogy (it seems to be favorable with you), appointed positions would be similar to re-marrying and/or new girlfriends/boyfriends. The possibility of remarraige/new friends is a subsequent situation of the original intent. It MAY happen, but then again it MAY NOT. Something like that is contingent on something that MIGHT happen. Why write an Article on a contingency?

OK, since no one else will do the damn thing, I will post a poll proposal, and then post a poll on this.

This poll proposal includes options for Art. G that uses the direct quotes from the people that posted them. Hopefully, this will make everyone of these people feel comfortable with the options.

Article G - Wording Of

Please choose one of the following options to be used as the wording of Article G of the DG4 Constitution.

1. All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

2. All offices so designated by the legislature shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.

3. All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

4. Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.

5. All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

6. Removal of article, each branch specifies procedures.


The winning option for this poll shall be Article G in the DG4 Constitution. (Except #6, obviously.)

This poll will remain open or 4 days.
Discussion can be found here.
There is no abstain option.

I will post this poll tonight .

Why can't we simply write Article G like it is in the DG2 constitution (as posted in the first post of the thread) and have it interpreted to allow leaders or deputies to be appointed if the law states it to be so? This worked just fine in DG2, from what I can understand. I do know where both donsig and Cyc are coming from, but why can't we just interpret this same article as we did in DG2?

Originally posted by ravensfire
Where, oh where is the relevance of worrying about appointing officials when we are discussing the length of an term? Explain that, donsig. Please.

You have tried, and tried, and failed to demonstrate in any way the relevance, or importance of even thinking about that issue at this point in time. Is there a single other person who is concerned about your issue relevant to this discussion about Article G?

Tell me, assume that all vacant offices must be filled by an election, what will Article G look like. Then, assume that all vacant office must be filled by appointments, what will Article G look like.

-- Ravensfire

They would look like this:

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. All such offices that are vacant must be filled by elections.

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. All such offices that are vacant must be filled by appointments.

You see these are general differences. We pick one (or a similar one) add it to the constitution then proceed to the CoL where we detail the appointment or election process as called for in the article we chose.

Can we now take our heads from out of our behinds and decide the general policy we want for DG4?

I see donsig's point. How we choose to word things in the Constitution can have an effect on what we are able to do in the CoL. Therefore you should have an idea what you want to do in the CoL so that you can allow for it in the Constitution. For one example, in Cyc's poll:

"4. Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

If this wording is adopted, you could not have appointed deputies assume the Leader position because a Leader must be elected.

Anyhow, most here seem to think this needs to be polled, so lets poll this and see what happens.....

That is simply not true, zorven. First of all, I support appointed Replacements for Leaders, just as I support appointed Deputies, just so you know where I'm coming from.

If #4 wins (a little anxious for that one, eh? :) ), it would allow for the CoL to state in one of its sub sections that if a duly elected Leader was not able to finish their Term, a suitable replacement could be temporarily appointed by the President, to fulfill the duties of said Leader. In plain English, the Leader was elected by the full citizenry for a Term fixed by Law. When that Leader bailed or was impeached (whatever) the Temporary Replacement was appointed by the President to make sure the will of the People was properly administered by that Office. I Personally had to take over the responsibilities of the Domestic Department at the end of a Term when there was no time for an election and there was no deputy. Appointment was the only option that made sense. Doing anything else in the replacement of a Leader anytime at all in a Term is wasting time in my opinion. I also think the Leader should appoint their deputy. That's common sense. But none of this matters.

What matters is we get this Article written and set as Article G. We can make Laws and Standards in the CoL and the CoS that support this Article depending on the views and opinions of the Congress as we move through this mess.

I will post the poll now.

Originally posted by Cyc
If #4 wins (a little anxious for that one, eh? :) ),

No, just picked it as an example.


it would allow for the CoL to state in one of its sub sections that if a duly elected Leader was not able to finish their Term, a suitable replacement could be temporarily appointed by the President, to fulfill the duties of said Leader. In plain English, the Leader was elected by the full citizenry for a Term fixed by Law. When that Leader bailed or was impeached (whatever) the Temporary Replacement was appointed by the President to make sure the will of the People was properly administered by that Office.

I have to disagree. Any replacement, temp or otherwise, is the de factor Leader and as such would need to be elected to be compliant with this proposal.

Not if the Law says otherwise, young man.

In my opinion any such law would then contradict the Constititution, old man ;)

That's because you don't really understand the nature of what we're doing here, zorven.

The Poll for this thread has been posted right here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1406585#post1406585) Please vote.

A reasonable compromise would be that any appointee can be confirmed by the people in an election, should that appointee ever need to be elevated to leader status. While I share Cyc's views on appointments to the letter, I would not be against having a 48 hour nomination/election process to fill an unexpected vacancy. The (appointed) deputy would maintain temporary control of the office, and would be entitled to run for the vacant leadership position. If there are no other nominees then the deputy gets the job, as things would work the same as they would in an uncontested election.

So, now I just thought of something else. :mwaha: :mwaha: Not to make things more confusing, but what the hey, it's late.

Throughout our history, in the event of uncontested elections an election never takes place. Our constitution should be wary of these fortunate people as well. Why should they get all the Constitutional perks of leadership just because no one else was interested in the position?

I am starting to think that the word "elected" is the biggest hindrance to our reaching a consensus on this article. Is there any way to draft this article without using this word, or do we really have to re-think everything to allow this word to stay? If appointments go, then uncontested election process should go as well.....unless we can somehow lose the word "elected" from this article.

This should be interesting. I'm waiting................................... ;)

Originally posted by Cyc
That's because you don't really understand the nature of what we're doing here, zorven.

Please enlighten me.

edit: this is not meant sarcastically.

Appointments aren't "going". Some people just have difficulty realizing the importance of the supporting books.

And you're absolutely correct about all those Leaders we've had that, because of uncontested candidacies, were put into Office with no election. This was done even though it was against the Constitution. (sarcasm) This totally invalidates our first three Demogames! Now we'll have to start over!(/sarcasm) :rolleyes: I think this exemplifies my point I was just making to zorven. Things are not always what the seem. If the People see the value of appointments, they will have no problem whatsoever writing them into Law.

zorven and Cyc, the toe-to-toe of the last few posts is unbecoming of both of you. Let's keep it civil, and a bit more long-winded ;)

Originally posted by zorven


Please enlighten me.

:lol: Please, zorven. I spend much too much time trying to enlighten donsig. :lol: Don't you start on me...

OK, Sorry, DZ!

Originally posted by Cyc

If #4 wins (a little anxious for that one, eh? :) ), it would allow for the CoL to state in one of its sub sections that if a duly elected Leader was not able to finish their Term, a suitable replacement could be temporarily appointed by the President, to fulfill the duties of said Leader.


If I were on the judiciary I would interpret this to mean that appointments were unconstitutional and I would rule any section of the CoL that dealt with appoitments as unconstitutional.

As you may have guessed by now I am against appointments. I would rather we discuss that issue now, poll it and write the constitution so that it is unambiguous on this issue according to the result of said poll.

Nothing to see here, please move along ...

-- Ravensfire

As a side note, with the weekend coming up, I would like to see several other polls put up, with a planning closing on Monday. As several of the current discussions revolve around preferences of the People, we need to settle them to allow the larger discussion to move on.

-- Ravensfire

Well, the people voted 20-3 in favor of considering appointments in our CoL. This means that we may have to go back to the drawing board on this Article, although we already have two new proposals to choose from.

First is the winner of the Article G poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70707):

Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law

Next, we have donsig's offering(posted in the Article G thread) based on the results of the Appointment poll:

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. Midterm vacancies are to be filled by Presidential appointment.

Two questions:

1. Which one of these will best allow for us to consider appointments?

2. Can either of these be improved upon?

To me these two polls are contradictory. How can we require leaders to have been elected and then decide that we want to allow deputies (who can become leaders) to be appointed?

How about this ~

"Each Term, which has a length fixed by Law, the Citizens will bring forth Leaders for the Nation via elections."

This pretty much includes everything that needs to be in the statement, plus by its wording leaves room for midterm vacancies. It also leaves room for a ruling in the CoL as to whether Deputies are classified as Leaders or not. Because midterm vacancies and Deputies are open-ended, appointments can still be allowable while satisfying the prior Constitution's goals. Plus it's close enough to the poll winning option to superceed it without causing major problems.

I thought we were on the right track with appointments and ratification polls. Maybe the dissenters to that system think the ratificaton poll is too one-sided. A good compromize would be to codify the difference between temporary and permanent, within the limits of a term. For example

Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law. A vacant leadership office may be filled temporarily by a person who has not been elected, for a period not to exceed 5 days, as such and only if such procedure may be prescribed by law.


This provides an explicit acknowledgement that temporary appointments are allowed, explicitly limits them to a period which should be sufficient to hold a special election, and requires a lower law to activate the provision for appointments. Hopefully this will satisfy all critics of temporary appointments and we can move on. :hammer:

But I think a temporary appointment would be a waste of time. Look, someone gets elected and then decides on bailing from the position cause he's found a new love. By the fifth day of the month the citizen get tired of waitng for a response from the absent Leader. They make a plea to the Domestic Leader, who's very busy with his new responsibilities, but says he will PM his good friend and look into the matter. The end of the first week rolls by and the Leader has still not been heard from. A plea is sent out to the President to oust the Leader, and the President agrees that the situation calls for a replacement. Gears are set in motion and by the 10th, the President has ousted the Leader and has set up a temporary replacement for the Leader. This gives him 5 days to find nominees for the position and hold an election. If he is able to do this, he will have a permenent replacement for the position by the 15th (if everything goes according to plan). That's two elections in two weeks for one position. Nominations would take place in 9 days to replace that new Leader. This is way too much work for our system, especially if participation drops (which may be caused by beauracracy like this). Keep in mind that the above scenario took place at the very begining of the Term. What would happen if this scenario took place starting on the 8th of the month? or the 15th? Much too much hassle.

If the President can appoint a permenent replacement (till the end of the Term), then nominations can begin on the 24th to replace him, just as if he had been elected at the begining of the month.

EDIT: Also, your proposed Article (above) is too detailed for an Article. It need only cover the basics, not contingencies. If we were to use something like that, shouldn't we add on to every other Article something about what we should do if something (anything, everything) goes awry with the original statement?

How about the following, which gets allows for appointments, but doesn't require them and leaves the details to the CoL.

Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law. Leader positions which become vacant may be filled via an appointment that is confirmed by the full citizenry.

I'm still in favor of :

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month.

When we create the process by which we fill vacant offices, include something along the lines of ... "This person shall be be subject to the same limitations as if they had been initially elected to this position."

-- Ravensfire

Unless we specifically state in this article that we are going to use an appointment process to fill vacancies then we will be in the same spot as in DG3. By merely stating that officials must be elected or may be appointed we leave the door open for a judicial review making appointments (or certain appointments) unconstitutional. Remember, if appointments are rendered unconstitutional then it doesn't matter what we put inthe code of laws, appointments would be illegal. The whole point of having the discussion and poll about appointments was to make a general decision on their use. The people decided to use them now let's not waffle on the issue. We can leave the decision for any appointment confirmation process till we do the CoL. But we should explicitly state that we will use appointments to fill vacancies so there will be no doubt later nor any room for constitutional interpretation games to invalidate appointments.

So how about:

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month. All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Define the appointment process in the CoL. The clause creates the terms "Vacant Office" and "Appointments", allowing us to clarify in later books. It also explicitly states that the new office-holder is there only for the remainder of that term.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
So how about:

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month. All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Define the appointment process in the CoL. The clause creates the terms "Vacant Office" and "Appointments", allowing us to clarify in later books. It also explicitly states that the new office-holder is there only for the remainder of that term.

-- Ravensfire This works for me if you change:

All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen

to

All vacant offices shall be filled by appointment of a citizen

:)

Grammar cop!

:D

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month. All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.


I do not like this proposal as it mandates one month terms. Let's leave that sort of thing for the CoL. We have used *fixed term* in both the DG2 and DG3 constitutioons and I see no reason to change that now.

Actually, the DG2 Constitution mandated one month terms as well as (gasp) turnchats! :eek: ;)

Check it out(G & K)........ (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68036)

Honestly, I don't think that we are going to get halfway through the game and then decide that a turn-based system is the answer for us. Pair that with the fact that turn-based elections lost quite soundly in a recent poll, and you can see why I have no problem with the inclusion of a one calendar month in our Constitution.

However, it is not worth another week of debate. Figure out the best wording, and present two options: One that states calendar month and one that states fixed terms. Do this and we can finally bag Article G. :D

DZ,

I will agree with donsig on this - my earlier proposals have all stated *fixed term* without specifics. I'm not concerned about time vs turn, more of the possibilty of allowing some offices to have longer terms.

Therefore, I propose that we adopt the following as Article G.
All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All such vacant positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Changes:
Replaced "elected officials" with "elected positions" to remain constant through clause
Replaced "term of one month" with "fixed term"
Replaced "appointing" with "appointment of"


To conform with your request, simply undo the first change.

-- Ravensfire

Good point, Ravensfire. I actually forgot that I was a proponent of longer Judiciary terms. :rolleyes: :lol:

With a noticeable absence of grace, DZ hops onto the "fixed term" bandwagon....

Originally posted by ravensfire
Therefore, I propose that we adopt the following as Article G.
All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All such vacant positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.


Sorry, I can't resist one more grammar police type comment :) such is less than optimum, how about:

All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

:cry: Everyone's picking on me!!!!!!! :cry:


:lol: Good correction!

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by DaveShack

All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

With this wording you are requiring that a Leader's position that becomes vacant must be filled via appointment thereby rendering deputies obsolete when it comes to replacing the Leader. Your new wording "All elected positions shall have a fixed term" is not what was approved by the poll. I think we need to stick to the approved wording with any additions we are now discussing forming a subsection of Article G.

Back to my proposal:

Article G: Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.
Section 1. Leader positions which become vacant may be filled via an appointment that is confirmed by the full citizenry.

I don't see how the word "may" could in any way cause a CoL that allows appointments to be ruled unconstitiutional. This Article specifically gives permission ("may") to use appointments. And my wording does not require every vacancy to be filled by appointment. And I do not see how my wording would forbid the CoL from specifying that any vacancy filled would be for the remainder of the term. I would also prefer that appointments be confirmed by the citizens.

quotin zorven:
With this wording you are requiring that a Leader's position that becomes vacant must be filled via appointment thereby rendering deputies obsolete when it comes to replacing the Leader.

I would think that if there was a Deputy, that would be the first place a knowledgible President would look when searching for a replacement. If the Prez did select the Deputy for appointment to the Leader position and the Deputy declined, then the Prez would have to look elsewhere. I've seen quite a few people run for Office staing that they didn't have enough time to be a Leader, but wanted to participate in the Department. Thus, the Prez would know before-hand not to look at the Deputy for appointment purposes. What if there was no Deputy? But all this is way too much to put into an Article.

I see yer point, but I think we've worked through it already, zorven.

I see yer point, but I think we've worked through it already, zorven.

Have we? Already? ;)

Tell you what......I will check on this tomorrow afternoon, and if it seems we are ready for poll, I will post one.

But how should we go about it? By choosing one proposal to ratify, or submitting every available proposal to the ballot? If we choose the latter, I would like to see us whittle it down to two or three choices so that we have a chance of avoiding a follow-up poll.

Please post your thoughts.

Wording aside, here's what I want to see.


Leadership positions filled via election.

Leaders, Governors, Justices -- definitely.
Deputies -- preferably.
Mayors & other "citizen" posts -- hard to do this and I'd lean towards giving the people "recall" power as a form of election.

Deputies can fill in for expected and unexpected absenses.
The leader can appoint a new deputy.
Someone (some have suggested the president) can appoint a new leader.
All appointments should be subject to ratification. The ratification process should allow at least a minimal amount of time for nominating alternatives to the appointment, so that the ratification is more than a rubber stamp.


The objective should be a minimal constitutional article which allows any reasonable combination choosing for each of these points, itself or its opposite, and does not mandate that all of the points have to be included at all.

I think we should just ratify the proposal by ravensfire. It includes the "appointment" word and mentions elected positions serving a fixed Term. After five and a half pages and a poll, I believe that's all we need.

zorven's proposal changed a few words like "by Law", but of course it's going to be fixed by Law, we're not talking veterinarians here. ;) He wants to swap the word "may" with "shall". This would just cause problems down the road. Then he brings up confirmation of appointees. I went back and checked this thread and today is the only day that confirmations are mentioned. I think zorven has taken up donsigism. :)

Most everything in DaveShack's wishlist is either covered by ravensfire's proposed Article or belongs in the CoL or the CoS.

So that covers it. Let's just ratify the ravensfire, reworded by Cyc, and finalized by DaveShack proposed Article. :D And put this one to bed...

sounds good, wasnt that the way it was before in DG3?

Originally posted by Cyc
zorven's proposal changed a few words like "by Law", but of course it's going to be fixed by Law, we're not talking veterinarians here. ;) He wants to swap the word "may" with "shall". This would just cause problems down the road. Then he brings up confirmation of appointees. I went back and checked this thread and today is the only day that confirmations are mentioned. I think zorven has taken up donsigism. :)


I don't understand your veterinarian joke. Sure both proposals mean the same thing. It is just a matter of style/preference.

My problem with "shall" is that, in my opinion, it would not allow for deputies to automatically assume, or have the right to, the Leader's position if the Leader postion becomes vacant.

Is there some rule that we cannot propose new ideas? I assumed we were re-working this Article since it has already been polled and decided and we are still discussing it.

zorven,

If, in the CoL dealing with vacant offices, we put the clause:
If a deputy exists for the vacant office, the deputy is automatically appointed to that office, would that correctly handle the situation?

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire,

I think that would work. And I suppose my idea to have appointments confirmed can go in the CoL as well if anybody else wants that.

Originally posted by zorven
ravensfire,

I think that would work. And I suppose my idea to have appointments confirmed can go in the CoL as well if anybody else wants that.

Exactly! The Constitution says that we fill vacancies with appointments. The CoL is were we get into the details of that process.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by zorven

Back to my proposal:

Article G: Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.
Section 1. Leader positions which become vacant may be filled via an appointment that is confirmed by the full citizenry.

I don't see how the word "may" could in any way cause a CoL that allows appointments to be ruled unconstitiutional. This Article specifically gives permission ("may") to use appointments. And my wording does not require every vacancy to be filled by appointment. And I do not see how my wording would forbid the CoL from specifying that any vacancy filled would be for the remainder of the term. I would also prefer that appointments be confirmed by the citizens.

Yes, but you are missing the obvious problem with using the term *may*. Vacant offices could be left vacant if whoever has appointing power decides not to use that power. You all word it the way you want but don't complain later if judicial reviews undermine your intent.

Originally posted by DaveShack

All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Still looks like this is the general preference - any objections?

-- Ravensfire

None here. :) And since no one else has objected, I now post this proposal for ratification.

Here is the poll:

Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article G (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71720)