Our current Article H based upon the DG2 Constitution:


H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.

This one should be kept.

Agreed. But one can Hold multiple Deputy possitions :D.

I would rather see that you can only hold one leader or deputy position.

Originally posted by zorven
I would rather see that you can only hold one leader or deputy position.

Well that is one I can agree to, To a point. I would rather see that a persion can only hold one Deputy possition and one Leader Possition. But the persion can hold a max of 2 Deputy possitions.

It all depends on the participation level, but I would like to see no crossover in any office. If you are a leader in one department, you cannot be a deputy of another department.

Once again, I believe that the specifics are better off reserved for the CoL. To me, this wording is sufficient as-is.

Under the current wording, a person who is a leader and a deputy would have to resign one position as soon as they would have to be an "acting leader" for the deputy position. This would then cause a vacancy in one department or the other. Why not just limit a person to one department to begin with? At least that way we would know where the vacancy would be and can try to fill it before it is needed.

I agree with this concept, zorven, and I hope it will come to pass. I just don't know if we need to mention deputies in the Constitution. To me the current wording covers the basic tenet that one cannot hold two leadership positions at once.

Also, I am starting to think that if a leader ever vacates his position, then a mid-term election should be held immediately. The deputy would be entitled to run for the position, but would not be entitled to the office only because he recieved the second-most amount of votes, or was appointed. However, these parameters can be defined in the CoL and still carry sufficient weight.

I think we both agree that deputies do not need to be mentioned here. What I think should be here is more like "no citizen may hold more than one elected position at any one time".

Can leaving deputies unmentioned still result in their ability to act for the leader in times of temporary absense, or in the interim period before a mid-term election can be held?

If lack of participation becomes a problem where we have to let someone hold two offices, is there an appropriate safety valve mechanism, or do we let an office sit vacant?

Again. we still should poll this topic with a few potential ideas.

Status Quo
Removal - should be covered in the CoL.
Increase the limit on the number of positions.
Branch Specific - No more than one position per branch of government.

Originally posted by DaveShack
Can leaving deputies unmentioned still result in their ability to act for the leader in times of temporary absense, or in the interim period before a mid-term election can be held?
No, but that should be covered in the absenteeism discussion in the CoL.
Originally posted by DaveShack
If lack of participation becomes a problem where we have to let someone hold two offices, is there an appropriate safety valve mechanism, or do we let an office sit vacant?
Errr, uhhhh. That would probably require a Con. Amendment to resolve. Let's just keep actively recruiting so we don't have that problem!

As it is, I prefer zorven's wording to the original.

-- Ravensfire

quoting FortyJ:
Branch Specific - No more than one position per branch of government.

I think this quote covers all the bases. :) excellent wording. It covers Leaders, Deputies (whether we decide to make them Leaders or not), Governors, and Justices. It's great. We would need to re-word it for the Con, but this basic concept is what we need. :thumbsup:

I am concerned about the direction of the Branch Specific idea. In theory, someone could be Chief Justice, President, and Governor of the biggest province in the nation, all at once.

Now, if they were elected to those positions, then good for us, and hopefully we chose wisely, but I want to be sure we understand what that means.

I agree!

We have enough citizens to restrict each person to holding only one elected office at a time.

I do like the idea that if a person is an elected official, they cannot be a deputy though ...

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by zorven
What I think should be here is more like "no citizen may hold more than one elected position at any one time".

This won't work as worded because of the word "elected". The problem is that there may be other positions that are elected that we did not intend to be covered by this section. A good example is the proposal to elect chat room ops. So how about:

"No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one elected position within the Executive, Legislative, and Judical branches."

This would work as long as none of the other types of "offices" (chat, cartography, etc) were defined as being part of a specific branch or department. This section would apply to mayors if they end up being elected.

Well, how about:
"No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time."

In the CoL, we'll defined the elected leader positions.

-- Ravensfire

quoting zorven:
"No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one elected position within the Executive, Legislative, and Judical branches."


Sorry, I don't agree. I believe a citizen should be able to run for and obtain 2 Offices in different Branches. If I were to be elected as a Governor of a Province, I would think it would also be appropriate for me to accept a Judicial Position. Especially if I had held one of those positions for several Terms already.

How about ~ "No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one elected position per Branch within the Executive, Legislative, and Judical branches."

Originally posted by ravensfire
Well, how about:
"No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time."

In the CoL, we'll defined the elected leader positions.

-- Ravensfire

My intention (if it wasn't clear) is that you could not hold a leader position and a deputy position. So, your wording would have to include deputies within the leader definition which I think would not be a good idea. I would also rather not mention deputies in this text. Therefore I still think my latest proposal would work best.

Originally posted by Cyc
Sorry, I don't agree. I believe a citizen should be able to run for and obtain 2 Offices in different Branches. If I were to be elected as a Governor of a Province, I would think it would also be appropriate for me to accept a Judicial Position. Especially if I had held one of those positions for several Terms already.

How about ~ "No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one elected position per Branch within the Executive, Legislative, and Judical branches."

I know we disagree with this section. So I think you should develop you own proposal for inclusion on the poll.

Originally posted by zorven
I would rather see that you can only hold one leader or deputy position.

I agree with this.

Originally posted by zorven


My intention (if it wasn't clear) is that you could not hold a leader position and a deputy position. So, your wording would have to include deputies within the leader definition which I think would not be a good idea. I would also rather not mention deputies in this text. Therefore I still think my latest proposal would work best.

Gotcha. I would prefer to see that in the deputy section of the CoL though, not in the Constitution.

I know, I'm wanting to put a lot into the CoL - that's what I feel it should be used for. The Constitution is a broad statement of the rights, duties and powers granted. The lower books of law is where those rights, duties and powers are further defined and limited.

As the source for our laws, the Constitution should give us room to make changes. By keeping things in general terms (the wording in my last post), we can implement just about every idea I've seen posted here, from Cyc's limits to the ones you've proposed. All it would take is a change to the CoL. If we go with my idea, we can even change what's on the list of a "leader" position to include, say, the Executive and Judiciary only, allowing Governors to run for office.

We want the same thing, just have a different view of getting it.

-- Ravensfire

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
I know, I'm wanting to put a lot into the CoL - that's what I feel it should be used for. The Constitution is a broad statement of the rights, duties and powers granted. The lower books of law is where those rights, duties and powers are further defined and limited.

I think that specifying how many positions a citizen can hold is a basic right/restriction that needs to be defined in the Constitution.

Originally posted by ravensfire
As the source for our laws, the Constitution should give us room to make changes. By keeping things in general terms (the wording in my last post), we can implement just about every idea I've seen posted here, from Cyc's limits to the ones you've proposed. All it would take is a change to the CoL. If we go with my idea, we can even change what's on the list of a "leader" position to include, say, the Executive and Judiciary only, allowing Governors to run for office.

I don't see how your wording would allow what Cyc wants. Your wording states "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time". Cyc wants you to be able to hold 2 leader positions - completely not compatible. And if you want to be able to use the CoL to make any change to allow for any possibility, why even have a section in the Constitution? And using the CoL to change the definition of a word depending on what section it is in would be a bad idea. Once a word is defined, it should be consistant through all levels of law.

Originally posted by zorven


I don't see how your wording would allow what Cyc wants. Your wording states "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time". Cyc wants you to be able to hold 2 leader positions - completely not compatible.

zorven, what ravensfire is saying is "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time." With this wording, the definition of Leader is the key. If, as he says, we change Governors to a "non-Leader" Title, then a Governor can run for and obtain a Leader position while keeping his Governor position intact.

And if you want to be able to use the CoL to make any change to allow for any possibility, why even have a section in the Constitution?

You're right, let's dump the whole thing. ;)

And using the CoL to change the definition of a word depending on what section it is in would be a bad idea. Once a word is defined, it should be consistant through all levels of law.

Deputies were not always Leaders, just as Governors were not always Leaders. Definitions change over time depending on the needs of the people who use them. And once a word is defined in the CoL, it will be consistant through all levels of law. :)

Originally posted by zorven

I don't see how your wording would allow what Cyc wants. Your wording states "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time". Cyc wants you to be able to hold 2 leader positions - completely not compatible. And if you want to be able to use the CoL to make any change to allow for any possibility, why even have a section in the Constitution? And using the CoL to change the definition of a word depending on what section it is in would be a bad idea. Once a word is defined, it should be consistant through all levels of law.

Well, it does. Cyc wants a person to be able to hold one office in each branch. You define one branch (Executive) as the "leader" positions in the CoL. In the election section, you restrict the ability of citizens to either run for more than one office, or hold more than one office.

Splitting hairs - somewhat, but that's what a broad Constitution allows you to do. We give ourselves a platform to stand on with the Constitution, but the details are in the smaller documents. We've got so many concepts laden down with "tradition" that it interferes with how we view things. If you went with a strict definition, DG3 deputies should have been considered elected officials, as you could only be a deputy based on your performance in the voting.

Restrict the right of people to hold a "leader" position, then define what that is. It may be that we go with Executive and Judicial branches as the leader positions. It may be that we go with all three. Either way, we state a term in the Constitution, then define it in the CoL/CoS.

-- Ravensfire

Well, the lunacy of this approach is becoming more and more apparent. Is a deputy a leader? Do we want someone to be able to ber on the judiciary and a governor as well? Do we want someone to be able to be governor and president? Governor and domestic leader? Deputy domestic and governor? Deputy military and President? Deputy foreign affairs and chief justice?

Personally, I'm for one person / one elected office. Period.

I still want to see a citizen hold only one office within the 3 branches, so I am going to stick to my proposal:

"No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one elected position within the Executive, Legislative, and Judical branches."

(And this would include deputies that get their position by being the runner up in an election.)

@zovren: It seems your proposal turns on the phrase *elected position*. I'm troubled by the fact that there are those who will push to fill vacancies through appointments. If they succeed then the door is opened that deputies are not elected positions. I'd not like to see that door opened. Basing this article on the posting of game play instructions may not make much difference but I will offer the suggestion anyway:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Please note that IMHO deputies can post game play instructions in the absence of their leader and justices should be empowered to post game play instructions under certain circumstances.

@ donsig: You do point out a valid "potential" loophole in my wording. So, in turn I will point out one in yours ;) : what if we never empower justices or explicitely empower deputies (for those special circumstances)? Then we could end up with justices and deputies not covered by this provision.

As I said in the other thread, unless we make some decisions we will end up with a useless article or two. :(

I am starting to think that we should begin to veer away from the idea of deputies being selected by being the runner-up in a departmental election. Perhaps it is time for a winner-take-all system where the primary vote-getter is the departmental leader, and he then gets to appoint his own deputy.

Hold on donsig, I am not finished..... ;) If for any reason, the leader of a department either resigns or is removed, or is declared absent from office(detailed in the upcoming CoL), the deputy is not automatically entitled to the position. Instead, he would gain temporary control of the office while emergency elections are held, preferably after a 48 hour nomination process. The deputy would be free to run for this position mid-term, as well as anyone else who is nominated. The new winner would then be able to appoint his own deputy and the cycle continues.

I, for one, do not see anything wrong with appointments. Sometimes it is a good way to reward a newcomer more quickly than would be possible on the election trail against the well-knowns. But I do agree with donsig that any leader should be elected by the people, and I believe that this system would satisfy this requirement.

If you don't agree with the emphasis on deputy appointments, we can keep the runner-up deputy basis intact, and still hold mid-term elections for any leader vacancy.

I see no reason for the elected members of the Legislative Branch to be denied "leader" status. I also stand with donsig in opposition to the thought of any citizen holding more than one leadership position in any of the three Branches simultaneously.

This is most evident in regards to the Judiciary, where a conflict of interest could arise should any jurist be charged with wrongdoing from actions taken as leader in another branch. Members of the Judiciary should absolutely never be allowed to hold another leadership position while they are serving on the bench.

In regards to the Legislative Branch, I see this branch evolving into a check and balance against the Executive Branch, especially if we decide that Governors/Senators should be charged with control of the slider. I think giving the Senate veto power(2/3 majority) against certain Executive proposals would add an interesting dynamic to the game. And this could not happen if we allowed citizens to hold a leadership positon in both branches.

Just some ideas on how I see the big picture, which is why I say no to multiple leadership positions.

Originally posted by donsig
@zovren: It seems your proposal turns on the phrase *elected position*. I'm troubled by the fact that there are those who will push to fill vacancies through appointments. If they succeed then the door is opened that deputies are not elected positions. I'd not like to see that door opened. Basing this article on the posting of game play instructions may not make much difference but I will offer the suggestion anyway:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Please note that IMHO deputies can post game play instructions in the absence of their leader and justices should be empowered to post game play instructions under certain circumstances.

donsig and zorven,

As deputies, and filling offices emptied by resignation or other means will probably be handled in the CoL, would it be acceptable to close these loopholes there?

-- Ravensfire

All right folks, let's address this issue. I'm sorry if my tone comes across as flippant but it is iritating to go through this process time and again. This is the third time now for me. :(

Number one: I am opposed to appointing deputies. Appointed deputies are not elected. The citizens have no control over appointed deputies. If we were to allow leaders to pick their deputies before the election so that the voters knew what they were getting then there's no problem.

Number two: We have to decide the function of our deputies. Throughout the demogames there have been two schools of thought. The first is that deputies are there to wait in the wings and take over should the leader disapear or atherwise abandon the office on a permanent basis. The other school of thought is that the deputy is there fill in on a temporary basis if need be or a permanent basis if need be. I am a proponent of the second school.

It seems to me the key to the entire deputy situation is coming up with explicit regulations as to when a deputy can post game play instructions. If we had a set game play schedule we could do it. We could say that if we get to 24 hours before the start of the scheduled session and there are no instructions from a given leader then his or her deputy can step in and post instructions.

Unless we do something like this deputies will be left in limbo. I never did like the idea of removing officials from office and the process we came up with required at least a weeks worth of absence by a leader before a deputy could step in on a permanent basis. That's about 25 percent of a term. Leaving an office leaderless for that amount of time pretty much makes the whole point of having a deputy moot. We need deputies that can step in quickly to keep the duties of the office going. That is why I want deputies to be elected. I see them as having the potential (on a short notice) to post game play instructions throughout the term.

Originally posted by ravensfire

donsig and zorven,

As deputies, and filling offices emptied by resignation or other means will probably be handled in the CoL, would it be acceptable to close these loopholes there?

-- Ravensfire

It depends. Take donsig's proposal:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Now assume that nowhere is the Judicial branch given any power to post game play instructions. I don't think you could then write a law in the CoL that says the Judicial branch members cannot hold other offices because that would contradict the above article in the Constitution.

Originaly posted by Donovon Zoi
I left a synopsis (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1403796#post1403796) of how things could work with appointments and elections, and it pretty much got ignored.

@DZ - Well, I dont want to see your proposal to be ignored ;).

I would agree that we should allow appointments of deputies. Since this would give a chance for a newbie citizen to get a chance to be in an office. I would like to keep the runner-up deputy basis intact if the leader fails or cannot find a citizen to appoint to as deputy.

I would prefer to continue using the runner-up as the deputy, but allow a leader without a deputy (as in the case of an uncontested election, or when a deputy resigns, or the deputy takes over the office) appoint one and present that person to the people in a nomination thread followed by a ratification poll. The only difference between this and a special election is that the deputy would be immediately empowered to act in the leaders absense if necessary, where in the special election case there is nobody to fill the office until the election closes.

Another alternative would be to have the president, the senate, or the executive council (assuming we have one) appoint an interim deputy (or even leader) during the special election process.

A third alternative is to give the largely ceremonial VP the ability to fill in for absent leaders, in which case no deputy is needed -- unless you're worried the VP could get god-like status by having all the other leaders resign en-masse... ;)

The more discussion I see, the more I think this needs to be branch specific. Here are some examples which would need further work.


Members of the judiciary may not hold any other position which is subject to disciplinary action.
The president may not hold any other position. (I tend to even think the president needs to appoint / recruit interim replacements for any position, even mayor, election office, etc.)
Governors may not be mayor of a city in a different province
A leader can be a deputy governor and a governor can be a deputy leader, and either may exercize temporary authority, but cannot be permanently promoted from the deputy position to the primary position without resigning the other office.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I am starting to think that we should begin to veer away from the idea of deputies being selected by being the runner-up in a departmental election. Perhaps it is time for a winner-take-all system where the primary vote-getter is the departmental leader, and he then gets to appoint his own deputy.

Hold on donsig, I am not finished..... ;) If for any reason, the leader of a department either resigns or is removed, or is declared absent from office(detailed in the upcoming CoL), the deputy is not automatically entitled to the position. Instead, he would gain temporary control of the office while emergency elections are held, preferably after a 48 hour nomination process. The deputy would be free to run for this position mid-term, as well as anyone else who is nominated. The new winner would then be able to appoint his own deputy and the cycle continues.

I, for one, do not see anything wrong with appointments. Sometimes it is a good way to reward a newcomer more quickly than would be possible on the election trail against the well-knowns. But I do agree with donsig that any leader should be elected by the people, and I believe that this system would satisfy this requirement.

If you don't agree with the emphasis on deputy appointments, we can keep the runner-up deputy basis intact, and still hold mid-term elections for any leader vacancy.
I like this last idea, that we keep runner-up deputies intact and hold mid-term elections for leader vacancies. I also think that we should give the President power to appoint a pro-tempore leader while nominations and elections are ongoing if both the leader and the deputy positions are vacant. I do favor the idea of mid-term elections over appointments and permanent deputy successions, but I do see the reason that these offices must be filled during the mid-term election process. I do also think that the deputies should be elected rather than appointed, unless the position was unfilled by the election process, where I would favor a leader appointment of a deputy over a special election for deputy.

Here is my official proposal for this article:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Do we have a proposed poll yet?

I would vote against that because a member of the Judiciary should not hold any other office, IMO. Just think: What happens if the President is also Judge Advocate? He may well be able to do whatever he wants by dismissing any PI's that get filed against him. Or what happens if somebody wins multiple Judicial offices? What does somebody who is simultaneously JA and PD do during a PI? I would support an article that forbade anybody from holding multiple Leader positions, as it is in the DG2 and DG3 constitutions.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would vote against that because a member of the Judiciary should not hold any other office, IMO. Just think: What happens if the President is also Judge Advocate? He may well be able to do whatever he wants by dismissing any PI's that get filed against him. Or what happens if somebody wins multiple Judicial offices? What does somebody who is simultaneously JA and PD do during a PI? I would support an article that forbade anybody from holding multiple Leader positions, as it is in the DG2 and DG3 constitutions.

Well, boostoots, I would give justices the power to post game play instructions under certain circumstances (to be determined when we write the CoL). I am not advocating that someone be allowed to be on the judiciary and hold another office at the same time. How about this: if we adopt this wording here we also put a caveat in the judicial article stating that any member of the judiciary cannot hold another office. Or better yet, I will revise my proposal.

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions. Any member of the judiciary cannot simultaneously hold another office empowered to post game play instructions.

Hmmm,

"No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office in the Executive or Judicial branch of the Government."

Yeah, I know - possible questions about if that means 1 office in Executive AND 1 office in Judicial, or does it mean 1 office in Executive OR 1 office in Judicial. Obviously I'm trying for the second - I'm struggling a bit around the wording.

I'm not comfortable with the "posting instructions" section - we just don't know if every office that will be in the various branches of the Government can post instructions. This gives us the flexibility we need, while conveying the intention we want. There is no mention of elections or appointment - it simply restricts a person to holding 1 position.

Now, I can think of some issues, mostly around deputies. However, I think *any* proposal will have them. I think that when we define deputies, we ought to eliminate anyone currently holding an office from being one. I would even go so far as to limit a person to being only 1 deputy.

Consider this case. If we use the wording based on posting game play instructions, and give deputies the power to post instructions in limited circumstances, a citizen may be an official or a deputy, never both, and never for more than one office.

We've removed all offices from the Legislative branch - it's now the People's branch, so it makes no sense to restrict it. I can see adding Legislative to the clause in case we create a new office, and would not be opposed to that.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

I understand that no one can have more than one Leader Possition. But what about Deputies. Can a persion hold more than one Depity possitions (I would recomend a limit of 2, just so that tey dont overexstend themselves).

BTW, Sorry if I am steping on anyone's shoes if I am bringing in the Deputy topic.

Originally posted by donsig


Well, boostoots, I would give justices the power to post game play instructions under certain circumstances (to be determined when we write the CoL). I am not advocating that someone be allowed to be on the judiciary and hold another office at the same time. How about this: if we adopt this wording here we also put a caveat in the judicial article stating that any member of the judiciary cannot hold another office. Or better yet, I will revise my proposal.

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions. Any member of the judiciary cannot simultaneously hold another office empowered to post game play instructions.
That I can agree with, as long as it's also clear that nobody can hold multiple judicial positions simultaneously.

Originally posted by ravensfire

I'm not comfortable with the "posting instructions" section - we just don't know if every office that will be in the various branches of the Government can post instructions. This gives us the flexibility we need, while conveying the intention we want. There is no mention of elections or appointment - it simply restricts a person to holding 1 position.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

Could we possibly decide who can and can't post game play instructions? That's a pretty general idea. We don't have to get into the exact circumstances under which instructions can be posted but we should be able to decide now whether judiciary members and deputies could ever post instructions.

I am quite comfortable with deputies posting instructions, under certain limited circumstances - see other discussion.

I would prefer to not see the Judiciary post instructions, but direct that a specific leader post a specific instruction.

Instructions are supposed to come from the leaders, not from the Judiciary. The Judiciary should be there to interpret rule questions, ensure elections are done right, help out on proposed legislation and dealing with events that violate DG laws. The remedy I would like to see used more is a directive to a leader to post an instruction resulting in a specific outcome.

-- Ravensfire

I am starting to feel like TerminalMan90 here. Most of my posts have gone largely ignored. :(

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I am starting to feel like TerminalMan90 here. Most of my posts have gone largely ignored. :(

CG - that's rather far from accurate. Many of your posts state your position - "I want to see XYZ for issue PDQ". There is nothing wrong with that - you are expressing your viewpoint on the issue. You are not, however, posting a statement that needs a reply.

In general, the posts that generate replies are ones that advocate a specific idea or proposal, and the reasoning behind it. I could post that "I think Article H should require all citizens to post in all caps!" If there was a reply at all, it would be essentially asking "Why?". When a person jumps into a discussion with a proposal, there is an expectation that they will include the reasons for that proposal.

Participation is key, and the more the merrier. But participation involves more than just jumping and shouting "Me too!" or tossing out a proposal without some basic reasoning.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I understand that no one can have more than one Leader Possition. But what about Deputies. Can a persion hold more than one Depity possitions (I would recomend a limit of 2, just so that tey dont overexstend themselves).

BTW, Sorry if I am steping on anyone's shoes if I am bringing in the Deputy topic.

I think sentiment is running pretty strongly towards one position, either leader or deputy, meaning that being a deputy for two offices would be prohibited.

Originally posted by donsig


Could we possibly decide who can and can't post game play instructions? That's a pretty general idea. We don't have to get into the exact circumstances under which instructions can be posted but we should be able to decide now whether judiciary members and deputies could ever post instructions.

I'm not sure it matters if the judiciary can post instructions or not. They should be prohibited from holding another office to avoid conflicts of interest in the JR and PI procedures.

The Judicary, IIRC, cannot post instructions.

I think I'll quote myself in hopes that bumping this to the bottom of the list will help y'all recognize that there is another alternative to the other things being discussed here.

Originally posted by DaveShack
I would prefer to continue using the runner-up as the deputy, but allow a leader without a deputy (as in the case of an uncontested election, or when a deputy resigns, or the deputy takes over the office) appoint one and present that person to the people in a nomination thread followed by a ratification poll. The only difference between this and a special election is that the deputy would be immediately empowered to act in the leaders absense if necessary, where in the special election case there is nobody to fill the office until the election closes.

Another alternative would be to have the president, the senate, or the executive council (assuming we have one) appoint an interim deputy (or even leader) during the special election process.

A third alternative is to give the largely ceremonial VP the ability to fill in for absent leaders, in which case no deputy is needed -- unless you're worried the VP could get god-like status by having all the other leaders resign en-masse... ;)

The more discussion I see, the more I think this needs to be branch specific. Here are some examples which would need further work.


Members of the judiciary may not hold any other position which is subject to disciplinary action.
The president may not hold any other position. (I tend to even think the president needs to appoint / recruit interim replacements for any position, even mayor, election office, etc.)
Governors may not be mayor of a city in a different province
A leader can be a deputy governor and a governor can be a deputy leader, and either may exercize temporary authority, but cannot be permanently promoted from the deputy position to the primary position without resigning the other office.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
The Judicary, IIRC, cannot post instructions.

Yes, CG, that is how it has always been. I'm suggesting (here and there and everywhere) that we give that power to the judiciary in DG4. I'm not going to get into the specifics of when they could do so (that would be for the code of laws), I'm just trying to see if we can agree now the judiciary should have the power.

Regarding one of your earlier posts about deputies: You and Ravensfire (I thought) asked much the same quesiton about how many deputyships a person could hold (under my proposed wording). I answered the question by quoting Ravensfire. I did not mean to slight you by doing that. :)

I don’t believe we should have the judiciary department to have the power to post in the turn instruction thread. For starters, the judiciary department does not deal anything with the game mechanics. Domestic, Military, Trade, Science, FA, and Governors do deal with things regarding the game mechanics. I don’t see a place for the judiciary to have the powers to post in the instruction thread. Since it would be silly to have the judiciary, mind you they don’t deal anything with the game mechanics, post in the instruction thread.
I personally don’t see the judicary posting instructions (Unless they are a deputy in a given office).

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I don’t believe we should have the judiciary department to have the power to post in the turn instruction thread. For starters, the judiciary department does not deal anything with the game mechanics. Domestic, Military, Trade, Science, FA, and Governors do deal with things regarding the game mechanics. I don’t see a place for the judiciary to have the powers to post in the instruction thread. Since it would be silly to have the judiciary, mind you they don’t deal anything with the game mechanics, post in the instruction thread.
I personally don’t see the judicary posting instructions (Unless they are a deputy in a given office).

The idea is that if a leader was doing something against the demonstrated *will of the people* then a citizen could go to the judiciary and say, "Hey! This leader isn't doing what he's supposed to be doing. See this here evidence? *citizen points to a poll*". The judiciary would then elavuate the case and if the leader is going against the *will of the people* then the judiciary can post the appropriate game play instruction which would over-ride any posted by the leader on that specific thing that the case was about. We would specify in the CoL exactly how this process would work.

Originally posted by donsig


The idea is that if a leader was doing something against the demonstrated *will of the people* then a citizen could go to the judiciary and say, "Hey! This leader isn't doing what he's supposed to be doing. See this here evidence? *citizen points to a poll*".

Oh, I get it -- this is an alternative to the PI process, in the area of instructions? I'd prefer this to having the DP decide an instruction is illegal for the same reason. :lol:

However, have we ever had a leader who actually did ignore polls?

Would this same concept apply to a citizen-initiated poll which is considered "informational" by the responsible leader? Has there been a case in the past where that happened?

H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.

OK, what do we need to figure out to get Article H ratified? It looks like all we need to do is determine what positions cannot be held simultaneously. As far as I can see, here are our options(from most to least flexible). Shall we restrict:

1. Leader positions in same branch(ok to hold leadership in more than one branch)
2. Leader positions period(each elected leader must be a different citizen).
3. Leaders/deputies(every government position held by a different citizen).

I am sure that there is a better way to word this, but you get the idea. For the sake of this proposal, the definition of leader is one who wins a position by election. As a matter of fact, I believe that should be the definition going forward.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Shall we restrict:

1. Leader positions in same branch(ok to hold leadership in more than one branch)
2. Leader positions period(each elected leader must be a different citizen).
3. Leaders/deputies(every government position held by a different citizen).

I am sure that there is a better way to word this, but you get the idea. For the sake of this proposal, the definition of leader is one who wins a position by election. As a matter of fact, I believe that should be the definition going forward.
Ideally it's 3; but is that realistically ? I've had a time in DG3, reffered to as "Rik's nominating frenzy", in which I've nominated nearly everyone for every office. I hoped this would result in more people actually running in the election, but again it turned out as a 2 or a 3 horse race. And with so few people running it's fantasy to have sufficient people to fill all leader and deputy positions.

As a result of my "nominating frenzy" I held simultaniously Mil-dep, Sci-dep, Dom-dep, VP, Governor and Mayor (and maybe more, I forgot) which gave me, in absence of the leaders in the T/C, the deciding and overpowered position. So to say: I ordered the Pres around in the T/C.

This was fun, however not desirable. I'd like 1 registered citizen to hold max 1 leader position or 1 deputy position.

I mean it like this:
"every government position held by a different citizen"
And we have a list which includes the deputies.
Pres - Domldr - Milldr - Cultldr - ... - Governor - VicePres - DepDom - ... - Dep Foreign. (or any order desired). This way you create a list or a 'set' of positions which 1 person can only held 1 at max.

It should be option 3 but it would not work. There are not enough players actively involved to make it successful. I want elections to be hotly contested with interesting debates.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


I am sure that there is a better way to word this, but you get the idea. For the sake of this proposal, the definition of leader is one who wins a position by election. As a matter of fact, I believe that should be the definition going forward.

Hmmm... wording.... do you see the benifit of grounding things according to who can post game play instructions?

@DaveShack: Yes, the suggestion (of giving game play instruciton posting authority to the judiciary) is meant to be an alternative to a PI. We could still have the PI process but by letting the judicary post game play instructions (under certain to be defined proceedures) we may be able to avoid some PIs.

@Peri: We should continue to work towards the #3 option (of restricting people to having and running for only one office). It is only by spreading the responsibilities around that we could ever hope to attract and hold more players.

Perhaps we can leave this wording as-is, and better clarify it in the CoL. I think no two leader positions(see definition above) should be held by the same citizen, and that is covered here. In the CoL, we should base our deputy decision on demand for the positions, so that the law may easily change as our needs change.

Once again, I don't think we need to mention deputies in the Constitution. Let's keep this article as-is, save for rewording it if necessary. :)

Originally posted by Peri
It should be option 3 but it would not work. There are not enough players actively involved to make it successful. I want elections to be hotly contested with interesting debates.

It depends on how many positions we create. As it stands now we have 5 executive positions and probably 3 judicial positions defined in the constitution. Add Governors, say not more than 10, and you have 18 positions. Notice I didn't include deputies because if we could get by without them and thus reduce the number of elected positions we have in the game.

I agree with DZ. Let's poll this sucker.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
This one should be kept.

absolutely, it wont be good if one slowly starts taking over the system, then it would be the Despotism Game!

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
OK, what do we need to figure out to get Article H ratified? It looks like all we need to do is determine what positions cannot be held simultaneously. As far as I can see, here are our options(from most to least flexible). Shall we restrict:

1. Leader positions in same branch(ok to hold leadership in more than one branch)
2. Leader positions period(each elected leader must be a different citizen).
3. Leaders/deputies(every government position held by a different citizen).

I am sure that there is a better way to word this, but you get the idea. For the sake of this proposal, the definition of leader is one who wins a position by election. As a matter of fact, I believe that should be the definition going forward.

I think we can agree on the above definition for Leader. How about the following proposals to be polled:

1. No citizen shall hold multiple Leader positions within the same branch of government.

2. No citizen shall hold multiple Leader and/or appointed positions within the same branch of government.

3. No citizen shall hold multiple Leader positions within all the branches of government.

4. No citizen shall hold multiple Leader and/or appointed positions within all the branches of government.

5. No citizen shall be restricted from holding mutliple positions within all the branches of government.

Note that with options 1 & 3 we would still have the option to restrict a citizen from holding multiple appointed positions or multiple Leader and appointed postions within that section in the CoL

If there are no objections, I will post this poll.

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.

OK, this one got buried again.....

Any final thoughts here? Otherwise I will send this up for ratification Friday afternoon EST.

As I've said before, I don't think we need to add deputies to the Constitution, so I feel there is no need for a clarification poll.

Poll has been posted. You can vote to ratify Article H here:

Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article H (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71897)

Ok, it has came to my attention that someone told me I cannot be both a deputy and a leader. In the past there were no problems in being both a leader and a deputy.

Right now I am planning to lift this restriction on not leting leaders have deputy possitions.

CivGeneral, I believe you will have to take your fight to the discussion on Section H of the Code of Laws.

Originally posted by zorven
CivGeneral, I believe you will have to take your fight to the discussion on Section H of the Code of Laws.

He doesn't have to, it is perfectly legal to hold a deputy poistion and a leader poistion, there is no law saying that he can not.

Atricle H simply stats that no one person shall old multiple leader poistions.

The exact wording being:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.

-=[Eating my Pie]=-

edit: no longer relevant due to CG's edit above.

-=[Again eating my pie]=-

edit: no longer relevant due to CG's edit above.

Originally posted by Strider


He doesn't have to, it is perfectly legal to hold a deputy poistion and a leader poistion, there is no law saying that he can not.

Atricle H simply stats that no one person shall old multiple leader poistions.

The exact wording being:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.

Strider,

The stuff for Deputies is all in the Code of Laws, section H. Click here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72146&pagenumber=2)

-- Ravensfire