Should we allow appoinments in DG4?

Yes
No
Abstain

Discussion link. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70672)

This poll will remann open for four days.

Yes, I believe we should allow appointments.

Rather than risk grinding our government to a halt, I would prefer that our ruleset allow us to put a bit of faith in the judgment of the leaders we elect. While some will argue that appointments do not serve the will of the people, I believe that they actually work as an extension of the people's will, with the added benefit of being geared toward the involvement of new citizens.

We must draft Article G so that appointments can be considered.

I concur with Donovon. I believe we should just trust the choice of the leader whom we elect to choose a deputy to appoint. Many people would say that appointments are a bad idea but I believe that this is a good idea since it would help a citizen to be involved in the demogame.

People, I encourage you to vote yes for appointments in Demogame IV.

Yes to appointments

The use of appointments will allow the game to flow, reducing delays and side debates, and allow new citizens the opportunity to participate earlier in a game.

-- Ravensfire

ps, donsig, uhh, what remann mean? ;)

I don't understand this argument that it will be easier for new players to get involved. I had no problem getting involved as a new player: I participated in discussions, I became a mayor, I ran for office. I don't know that I would trust an unknown that was appointed to a leadership position.

I understand your concern Zoeven. But this is regarding appointing deputies if a person won uncontested
This would be a good thing to have a new person to be appointed to a mayor and/or a deputy. The newbie citizen can earn trust by merely being an active deputy (Like Donovon Zoi, FortyJ, and I).

I know this is in regard to deputies. I meant that deputies are part of the leadership, not a Leader, and have the realistic possibility of becoming a Leader.

Yes. It will allow the game to be played at a faster pace.

Yes, I think that is a good way to get new players active.

Are those voting believe that this poll is in regards to mayors or to deputies, or both?

It is a shame that those voting to allow appointments seem to cite moving the game along faster or something similar as their reasons for doing so. There are many ways to ensure the game moves along without resorting to the use of appointments. For instance we could use deputies to fill in... :rolleyes:

Since I am not certain that Mayors will be defined by our Constitution, I would imagine that this is mostly about deputies.

Keep in mind that this poll does not make the concept of appointments a foregone conclusion. It merely illustrates that we should define Article G of our Constitution so that we may at least discuss the possibility.

Originally posted by donsig
It is a shame that those voting to allow appointments seem to cite moving the game along faster or something similar as their reasons for doing so. There are many ways to ensure the game moves along without resorting to the use of appointments. For instance we could use deputies to fill in... :rolleyes:

And you are, of course, correct about deputies.

But ...
Where do those deputies come from?
What to do if a leader resigns, and there is no deputy?

Mostly the first, as the President can also act in place of a vacant leader as a temporary stopgap measure.

-- Ravensfire

I interpreted this thread-topic as appointing Mayors, deputy-mayors, Military leuitanants (pardon my french), science-assistances etc.

Being Deputy Mayor of Gorina ignited my enthousiasm. I want to give this back to new players.

I voted yes to appointments of deputies.

In the case of a resignation or an extended period of unexplained absence, the DP temporarily assumes the leader's workload and a new election is anounced with the appointed deputy at the head of the ballet. That way other interested citizens can apply for the position and the citizenry get to decide who the replacement will be.
If nobody steps up to contest the position, the ballet should be yes/no and the citizens still get to voice their opinions.

I like this method, TMan, and have stated it somewhere(though in a much less articulate manner) myself. :)

This way we can have appointments, but a new leader is still elected should a mid-term issue arise. The only time the "non-elected" deputy will be in control of an office is the few days it takes to confirm the new election.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Since I am not certain that Mayors will be defined by our Constitution, I would imagine that this is mostly about deputies.

Keep in mind that this poll does not make the concept of appointments a foregone conclusion. It merely illustrates that we should define Article G of our Constitution so that we may at least discuss the possibility.

Or it may mean that we shoudl just go ahead and write Article G to explicitly ban or mandate appointments. It is my hope that we will do so rather than have to rely later on *what the framers had in mind* when they wrote the constitution. If we have something definate inmind then let's put it into words and leave no doubt.

Originally posted by ravensfire

And you are, of course, correct about deputies.

But ...
Where do those deputies come from?
What to do if a leader resigns, and there is no deputy?

Mostly the first, as the President can also act in place of a vacant leader as a temporary stopgap measure.

-- Ravensfire

#1: If article G mandates that they be elected then they will have to be elected.

#2: Why would we wait till a leader resigns to find him a deputy? Why wouldn't we find a deputy as soon as the *old* deputy left?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that an appointment process (especially one with any kind of confirmation attached) takes time. Yes, special elections take time, too, but since neither is instantaneous I still prefer elections.

Originally posted by donsig


#1: If article G mandates that they be elected then they will have to be elected.

#2: Why would we wait till a leader resigns to find him a deputy? Why wouldn't we find a deputy as soon as the *old* deputy left?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that an appointment process (especially one with any kind of confirmation attached) takes time. Yes, special elections take time, too, but since neither is instantaneous I still prefer elections.

The last scenario refers to a situation where the deputy isn't around, or is unable to assume the office for whatever reason.

Your point is a valid one - it's just a question of preference for me. Either approach would work - I think appointments would be a touch (1-2 days) shorter.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by TerminalMan90
I voted yes to appointments of deputies.

In the case of a resignation or an extended period of unexplained absence, the DP temporarily assumes the leader's workload and a new election is anounced with the appointed deputy at the head of the ballet. That way other interested citizens can apply for the position and the citizenry get to decide who the replacement will be.
If nobody steps up to contest the position, the ballet should be yes/no and the citizens still get to voice their opinions.

Why not just have the DP carry the workload until the election is settled. Under your proposal we don't even need a deputy.

I have always assumed that the whole reason for having deputies is so that a given office will continue to function even if the leader inexplicably disappears for just a short time. It goes back (once again) to whether deputies can take over at any time the leader is gone or whether the deputy has to wait around to be formally elevated to the leader position. It amkes no sense to me to have to have a given number of game play sessions missed before the deputy can step in. The whole point is to no miss any game play sessions.

Originally posted by ravensfire

The last scenario refers to a situation where the deputy isn't around, or is unable to assume the office for whatever reason.

Your point is a valid one - it's just a question of preference for me. Either approach would work - I think appointments would be a touch (1-2 days) shorter.

-- Ravensfire

If we've go a leader and a deputy in place an neither one wants to or is able to post instructions then I have no problem letting the DP take up their slack. We do not need a chain of command for every office.

Yes, appointments can be faster but then we're losing some of the democracy aspect. At least that's how I feel about it.

posted by donsigWhy not just have the DP carry the workload until the election is settled. Under your proposal we don't even need a deputy.

I have always assumed that the whole reason for having deputies is so that a given office will continue to function even if the leader inexplicably disappears for just a short time. It goes back (once again) to whether deputies can take over at any time the leader is gone or whether the deputy has to wait around to be formally elevated to the leader position. It amkes no sense to me to have to have a given number of game play sessions missed before the deputy can step in. The whole point is to no miss any game play sessions.
In an ordinary situation, the roll of the deputy is to cover off for the leader when requested by said leader. The leader may elect to deligate responsibilities and/or subtasks to his deputy as he/she sees fit. If the leader is absent for a short, or extended period, I would assume the deputy would be take up the slack until it was decided by the chain of command that the leader had transgressed enough to be booted from the office. At that point the DP would take responsibility for the vacated office until a mandate from the people validated the deputies entitlement to the office and sole responsibility for that office.
What my suggestion tries to avoid is unrestricted access to the office without the oversight of an elected official. In my mind, the deputy only has legitimate access to the responsibilities of office through the oversite of the leader who appointed him. Once that leader is pulled (or resigned) from her position, the deputy's ligitimacy is called into question and must be brought before the citizenry.
Is that more clear, Donsig?

Originally posted by TerminalMan90

What my suggestion tries to avoid is unrestricted access to the office without the oversight of an elected official. In my mind, the deputy only has legitimate access to the responsibilities of office through the oversite of the leader who appointed him. Once that leader is pulled (or resigned) from her position, the deputy's ligitimacy is called into question and must be brought before the citizenry.
Is that more clear, Donsig?

I am of the opinion that, once the citizens elect someone to an office they are stuck with him or her unless the elected official formally resigns or is found guilt of high crimes. Once officially removed (for whatever reason) the deputy should automatically be installed as the new leader. Merely confirming someone in position is not the same as electing them. I am also much more concerned with what we should do when a leader just vanishes without a word. I do not think we should wait around letting the leaders work go undone. The deputy should be able to step right up and get things done. Therefore I believe we should be electing deputies (some way somehow) rather than appointing them.

I am all for appointing citizens to minor posts but to appoint deputies to the executive is a ridiculous idea. I am shocked that so many people have voted for it. We elect leaders to the government because we want to choose by whom we are goverened. Since deputies sometimes exercise the power of a leader they should be chosen in the same way.

They are chosen in some way Peri. The Leader we elect to guide us choses the best person they can find to back him/her up in times of trouble. They don't throw dart at pictures of avatars and post the one that wins.

I do appreciate that. However I just believe that the people should choose directly the deputy leader as well.

Originally posted by Cyc
They are chosen in some way Peri. The Leader we elect to guide us choses the best person they can find to back him/her up in times of trouble. They don't throw dart at pictures of avatars and post the one that wins.

We haven't tried that method in the demogames yet Cyc. Maybe we should since it will be just as good as using appointments. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by donsig


We haven't tried that method in the demogames yet Cyc. Maybe we should since it will be just as good as using appointments. :rolleyes:

So what yer saying donsig is you have no faith in anyone's judgement when it comes to deputies, but your own. You fell that throwing darts is equal to the ability of the Leaders we elect. Maybe we should just pass a Law that will allow us humble minions the opportunity to forgo choosing a "second-in-command" by giving that responsibility to you. Your Judgement is probably a lot better than throwing darts, don't you think?

Originally posted by Cyc


So what yer saying donsig is you have no faith in anyone's judgement when it comes to deputies, but your own. You fell that throwing darts is equal to the ability of the Leaders we elect. Maybe we should just pass a Law that will allow us humble minions the opportunity to forgo choosing a "second-in-command" by giving that responsibility to you. Your Judgement is probably a lot better than throwing darts, don't you think?

C'mon Cyc, get it all out of your system. :vomit:

What I am saying is we should elect anyone who will be posting game play instructions. We should not use appointments to fill vacancies. I think it would be great if we allowed those running for leadership positions to pick their own deputies as long as it is done before the election so everyone has the opportunity to place their votes based on who the deputy will be. (Just as we do in the US when we elect a president.)

I would also prefer to fill leadership positions via special election when there is no deputy to step in.

The people have voted quite decisively that we should consider appointments in DG4. Whether this makes it into the CoL will be another matter, but at this time, Article G of our Constitution must be drafted to allow this immediately.

That said, the current dialogue here does nothing to meet this end. So let's get back to work. The sooner we confirm Article G, the sooner you may speak of this again.

As always, PM me with any questions or concerns. This discussion is closed.