Here is Section D of the DG2 Code of Laws. This section deals with the Legislative Branch. Please propose any modifications that will make for a better ruleset, as well as identify any passages that are no longer needed.

Please note that due to a recent poll, Governors will remain a part of the Legislative Branch, and therefore shall not be included in this discussion.

D. The Legislative Branch
1. The Senate (Governors)
A. Provinces
1. Provincial borders are geography based and will be approved
by the Congress.
2. A province may contain any number of cities.
3. Provincial borders shall be defined well ahead of expansion.
B. Each province will have a deputy. The Deputy Governor assumes all
powers and responsibilities of the provincial office during the absence of
the governor.
C. A governor organizes the production (building queues) of the cities in a
province.
1. A governor’s build queues may be preempted under certain
circumstances:
A. Presidential decree supported by Administrative
Council Vote.
B. Military Leader decree during invasion of the province.
C. Cultural Leader decree for cultural border expansion
or defense.
D. A governor organizes the tile use in his province.
1. If a tile is unused, it may be used by a city in a neighboring
province.
E. A governor organizes tile development in his province.
F. The Domestic Leader is the governor of all cities that lack a
provincial governor.
1. When a defined province grows to 3 cities during an election
term, a provincial governor may be appointed.
2. The Congress (Citizens)
A. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.
3. Legislative Votes
A. Poll mechanics
1. Congressional and Senatorial polls will be posted by the
Judiciary upon completion of Judicial Review.
A. Congressional polls are in anonymous responder
format (standard Forum poll option).
B. Senatorial polls are in open response format (normal
thread, no Forum poll option).
2. Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format.
3. Polls will stay open until:
A. All votes have been cast, or;
B. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot
affect the outcome of the vote, or;
C. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
1. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
4. The quorum for changes in the Code of Laws is 1/2 of the
active census.
5. A 2/3 majority of support is required to adopt or alter a law.

I would like to see 1.A changed to say that Borders are based on tile count as they were in DG1 with 5 or 6 cities in each Province.

1.B can say each Province shall have a Lt. Governor appointed by the Governor.

1.C.1.D should be moved out to be 1.C.2. This would include 1.C1.E (which would then become 1.C.2.A. This of course would have 1.C.1.F move up to become 1.C.1.D.

Remove 3.A.5

Remove section 1.C.1 entirely except:
-- Promote 1.C.1.D,E,F to under 1.C

-- Ravensfire

again, one thing i really miss in the DG is the opportunity for the local citizens to be able to manage their own cities. therefore, i'd either like this formulation to be changed:


C. A governor organizes the production (building queues) of the cities in a
province.


or add this:

"G. Local opinion in the cities has to be followed.

1. citizens residing in the province may post bills for alternative instructions regarding the management of their home city.
2. this includes worker requests (stated in the turnchat instructions thread), buildques, labour placement.
3. for this bill to be recognised a legal instruction, it has to:
a. be clearly stated in the provincial thread at least 12 hours before the turnchat.
b. have the consent of a majority of the concerned citizens (stated by the citizen in a post in the provincial thread) at least 6 hours before the turnchat.
4. if a passed bill has not been posted by the govenor in the turnchat instructions thread 1 hour before the turnchat, any involved citizen may post the passed instruction in its original form in the turnchat instructions thread.
5. the local opinion as stated in a passed bill can still be preempted by the excecutive branch as stated in D.1.C.1.A, B, and C.

into this:


1. A governor’s build queues may be preempted under certain
circumstances:
A. Presidential decree supported by Administrative
Council Vote.
B. Military Leader decree during invasion of the province.
C. Cultural Leader decree for cultural border expansion
or defense.
D. A governor organizes the tile use in his province.
1. If a tile is unused, it may be used by a city in a neighboring
province.
E. A governor organizes tile development in his province.
F. The Domestic Leader is the governor of all cities that lack a
provincial governor.
1. When a defined province grows to 3 cities during an election
term, a provincial governor may be appointed.

we also need to add that the excecutive (domestic) should be able to force any city to change its production to a settler.

I think some version of 1.C.1 A-C (provision for production override) should remain, but would prefer a majority vote of the senate or a majority of congress (a simple poll with 1/2 census quorum) to override.

Mayors. Such an interesting concept - allow a citizen to assist in the running of an individual city.

From the brief amount of research I've done, Mayors appear to have started with DG3. At least the 3 DG2 provincial threads I looked through didn't have any. Very possible though - we had a lot of cities in that game ...

As an official entity, Mayors aren't really mentioned anywhere. In fact, they ought to be regarded as one of the most successful examples of how things should have been under the DG3 ruleset. Moreover, the presence of Mayors led directly to the logic used in a Judicial Review, that officials had the right to delegate duties to others.

Mayoral offices ought to remain as such - delegated by the Governors and serve to advise the Governors. Under no circumstances should the instructions from a non-elected official be considered superior to that of an elected official.

Mayors are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and thus do not have official duties, responsibilities or powers. They should derive their existance from the Governors of their province. By tradition, Mayors transcend Governors, remaining even as the office of Governor changes from one citizen to another. By tradition, only poor performance has led to the removal of a Mayor.

Let's keep it that way. It has worked perfectly in the past - no fancy regulations, just help the Governor in that little part of the province.

-- Ravensfire

I fully agree with you, ravensfire. During my brief stint as governor of Quirnial Province last game, I was able to bring several citizens into the game by giving them mayorships, which was key in getting new citizens involved in the game and is an excellent starting position. Zorven and deshelbr are two key examples of citizens who got their start in the DG as mayors in Quirnial Province in that term. I see the involvement of new citizens as the primary reason for the existence of mayorships in the first place. Yet I'm sure that if new citizens had to go to the trouble of choosing a location, holding an (intra-city) election, and then being proclaimed mayor until a new election was held. I also think that if we do that, it would add all sorts of added complications that all citizens, and new citizens especially, wouldn't want to have to deal with. Though it is true that the local governments may work well in one or two cases, most cities won't have a functional one at all.

I am against on all of these changes. For one thing this system has been working since I have first started the demogame and I wish to see that this Part of the consitution to remain untouched.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I am against on all of these changes. For one thing this system has been working since I have first started the demogame and I wish to see that this Part of the consitution to remain untouched.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

CG - we HAVE to change parts of this - read through this section carefully.

First - we don't have a Cultural Leader any more.
Second - we don't have Senatorial polls (that provision was removed from the Constitution)
Third - I really don't like overrides - convince me with logic, not a vote

Another change noted - remove 3.A.1.B

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire - We dont need to change this, Unless you convice me otherwise. I am still dead set against on changing this.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
Ravensfire - We dont need to change this, Unless you convice me otherwise. I am still dead set against on changing this.

Then tell me please,

Where is the Cultural Leader position defined?
-- We eliminated that position, remember?
Where are Senatorial Polls defined?
-- We removed the Senatorial approval of new laws, remember?

Convinced?

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


Then tell me please,

Where is the Cultural Leader position defined?
-- We eliminated that position, remember?
Where are Senatorial Polls defined?
-- We removed the Senatorial approval of new laws, remember?

Convinced?

-- Ravensfire

Convinced? No. Am I turning into a writing proffessor looking for long argumentive statement posts? Yes :ack:.

Show me where we removed the senatoral laws and the Culture Leader Possition. Then I will change my conservitive view point ;)

Originally posted by CivGeneral


Convinced? No. Am I turning into a writing proffessor looking for long argumentive statement posts? Yes :ack:.

Show me where we removed the senatoral laws and the Culture Leader Possition. Then I will change my conservitive view point ;)

CG - you've got to be kidding me.

Refer to the following discussions:
-- Article D of the Constitution - note the leaders
-- Article I of the Constitution - note removal of Senatorial approval

I will admit that I went a bit overboard, especially with Senatorial polls. However, I do expect that a person commenting on this process has some understanding of what's going on. Your first post contained "...I wish to see that this Part of the consitution to remain untouched."

First, this is not the Constitution, it's the Code of Laws. Second, the very fact that the Constitution has changed results in nullities in the document.

No, I am not expecting anyone to turn into a writing professor. I do, however, expect that a person be willing to do just a little bit of research. That's all. In this case, review the Articles of the Constitution that this supports to see what is there. Although not finalized - it's pretty close.

-- Ravensfire

Sorry D'yer Mak'er, but I have to agree with Ravensfire on your proposal. Mayors have worked best as an informal part of the game, and until we reach a point where we have 100+ citizens it should probably remain that way. :)

Actually, most of what you are proposing can still be done as it has in the past: with simple communication between a governor and his mayors.

Now, that said, I would like to present an interesting concept:

Since Governors will hopefully have the support of a staff of mayors, is there really any reason for a Gubernatorial deputy? Perhaps we can make it so that the Mayor of the largest city takes over during the Governor's absence, or something like that.

Basically, I am looking for ways to put a fresh perspective on the Legislative Branch. We can do this by:

1. Limiting provinces to 4-5 cities. More provinces=more Governors.
2. Get rid of the Gubernatorial deputy position, or grant that position to the "highest ranking" mayor(determined by?).
3. Give the Senate something to vote on(besides just the science slider). Let's make the checks and balances in this game exciting to witness!
4. Vice-President gets tie-breaking vote in Senate(would not work under current system as this could actually undermine the Presidency, seeing as the VP is traditionally the second place vote getter for that position and therefore a rival).

That's all I have for now. There is a big picture I see that reveals itself to me in small pieces, so I don't know if there's anything here or not. Let me know. ;)

Interesting idea, DZ (referring to #2). Size, then age of city as a tiebreaker.

#1 - I'm all for small province size.

#3 - The Senate should control both the Slider and the cash budget. Pop rushes should be at the discretion of the Mayor/Governor. If we do this, we will need a provision allowing for enough at-large Governors to reach a minimum size of 3. Once we reach 3 provinces, the at-large position is eliminated. I would go so far as to say that as we create the first three provinces, the at-large Governors assume control of them, by some predetermined order. This will give us an easy transition into the first three provinces.

#4 - Sounds good to me.

-- Ravensfire

first of all, thanks for putting down your thughts and constructive criticism in this discussion. only through discussion real progress can be made. having that said, i'm still convinced by the simplicity and the superiority of my system... let me clearify this idea some.

first of all, i don't want to use the old informal one-mayor-per-city-system system here. in this system, that would lead to an undemocratic situation, where those people appointed mayors would have too much influence. what i'm suggesting is that the citizen's right of movement (to reside in one city at a time) to be used as a mandate to make the citizen (the deme) the basic political unit.

the idea is that this system enables the citizens to form their own political touch to their home city. this will create local forums where cities will form their own subcultures.

larger cities will draw more people than smaller ones, because choosing to place their mandate there (reside in the city) will have a greater impact on the game - you will be able to influence the production of a large city. but, as more and more people chooses to live in a large city, the less influence one person can make - the citizens will have to agree on how the city is to be managed to achieve the required "consent of the majority of the citizens" for the instructions the city makes. this is when the citizens will move to other (smaller) cities where they can have more influence - 1 out of 3 citizens in a city is a "heavier" vote than 1 out of 5 in another city. this way, people can choose their level of participation. those who like to influence the game will try to live in as large cities with as few members as possible, while those who are new can limit their influence by either choose to reside in a small city (low production - small responsibility) or in a city with a lot of citizens (low influence - small responsibility). this way we will have a dynamic, self-regulating, democratic system where the power lies close to the citizen.

translating this into the old DG3 world would probably mean that Gorina, Noshuret, Memphis, Aureus and Iron Hills probably would be cities where more than persons descides to reside, either because of a lively culture (like that of gorina), dynamic gamplay and challange, or a high influence through high production (or food) (Iron Hills, Aureus). we would have average participation in the middle-sized capitoline and aventine cities, and the outer cities (far quirinal, esquiline, conquered territories etc. ) would probably mostly have no participation and therefore ruled entirely by govenors or domestic.

perhaps some large cities decide to rely on a skilled ruler (mabye the population of gorina would give cyc authority over the city) where on other places different personal agendas would require discussions, voting, and perhaps elections within the cities... the threat of having outer powers take control of the city (govenor or domestic manages the city of no local opinion can organize itself) should be enough to encourage willingness to meet an agreement among the locals...

please note that with the current formulation, the described situation would be the most chaotic one we could possibly achieve. this is an enthusiastic scenario. in pratcie some people won't be interested in this and a lot of cities will stand empty - like in DG3. we will probably have about the same situation as we have had in the past games - without one tragic problem:

Actually, most of what you are proposing can still be done as it has in the past: with simple communication between a governor and his mayors.

you are completely right about this, DZ. but the classic problem here isabsenteeism - when the locals are beeing more active than the elected govenor. there have been situations where:
[list=1]
locals have posted requests which has been ignored
the govenor has not posted the TC instructions at all
elected govenor has left the demogame after beeing elected
[/list=1]
we can not pretend as these problems do not exist. people who participate on a local level need some certanity that their efforts are not wasted.

then you say "we already have the PI process"? yes, the PI process i a good step in the right direction, but there are two problems here. first, there is no clear definition of what should be considered absenteeism. true, complete absenteeism is easy to define, but above that level is a large grey area. second, a legal process takes time, and by the time that is over the damage has already been made.

but, again, this proposal is not just a way to counter absenteeism. in it's purest form it will enreich the game by enabling citizens to create a local form of identity. and to counter this local power we always have the excecutive branch, with its more national perspective, there with the ability to preempt the city management in some special cases (D.1.A.1) such as military, expansive, infrastructural, cultural, and economic needs.

thank you

Wow - great post there! You've given me a bit to think about. Local elections it seems, but with a small twist.

In the meantime - I will address one of your concerns - absenteeism. Now, if you'd just take that train of thought, and move it down to this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72146) thread, that would be great ....

Must ponder ..... (And, that tafeta dress would look just lovely on Mrs. Hamster over there. Shut up Pinky!)

-- Ravensfire

haha :) it took a while to write that down...(and english is not my first language so it's time x 2)
well, if you liked that, perhaps i could interest you in some more (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67365) one-hour-posts? :mischief:

gonna try to figure out something about that absenteeism stuff too...

Actually, D'yer Mak'er is onto something here, I just think he's going about it in an off hand way.

D'yer Mak'er your posts drift in and out on different subjects (so it's hard for me to pinpoint some of the relevance), but you seem to tie them all into the right of a citizen to determine the production of the city they reside in. In a way, I think you're right. And I believe citizens should be vocal about what goes on in their hometown. In Gorina, I really appreciated all the extra work that Rik Meleet did PLUS all his input on his personal feelings about how things should be done. I believe I only disagreed with him once (at that time, I let him know why in a post in the city thread). It was really nice to hear what someone else thought could be done in the city I was Mayor of. And believe me, I always let my Governor know what I thought was best for Gorina. That was my job. If the Governor had ignored me or had gone AWOL, I would have raised hell, as I did in DG1 AND DG2.

Leaders must conform to the will of the people, but Governing Provinces is a tricky fence to stradle. It's a Governor's job to determine what is best for a Province, period. But it is also a Mayor's job to oversee his city. I believe the best way to handle this situation is that the Governor must respond to a Mayor's request for build queues. If he agrees with them, then the Governor posts them. But if the Governor doesn't agree with the Mayor and plans on not posting those BQ's, he must post (as soon as possible) his reasons for not allowing them.

It's always a good idea to keep your constituents happy if you want to be re-elected.;)

So now it's post #20 and no one has addressed the items I posted in post #2.

yep, you got the point. the idea is that the production is decided by the citizen through this home-city-mandate system instead of through electing the govenor to make the desicions. this way citizens will have more influence over details through the period.

Originally posted by Cyc
It's a Governor's job to determine what is best for a Province, period.

it doesn't have to be that way. even though a lot of govenors have done an outstaning job, it's still my conviction that we could achieve both greater attention to details, and a higher level of participation with this method.

the city-states of ancient greece were governed through this form of local direct-democracy (hence the term deme to describe the role of the citizen).

I agree with you, D'yer Mak'er. But it's up to the citizens to make it happen. And if it doesn't happen, then the citizens 1. should never vote for that Governor again, or 2. file a PI on the Governor, or 3. both. In fact every time that person ran for Office I would bring up what a terrible job they did as Governor.

I just don't think we're ready for a change in this Article.

Only curious, in DG3, what city other than Gorina attained a high level of participation?

I don't believe you're being curious at all, bootsie. What's yer point?

it wasn't one city, but the quirinal provine had a very high local participation level, especially concerning the low industrial output these cities had. later in the game i noticed similar tendencies in the esquiline province.
i don't know about the esquiline, but i'm ceartin that quirinal, some terms more than others, would have benefitted a lot from more local independency.
also, expect local participation to increase with this law...

Are we done here? It certainly looks like no one has anything to add...

Originally posted by Cyc
I don't believe you're being curious at all, bootsie. What's yer point? Sorry, I didn't check this thread for four days. :crazyeye:

Anyway, my point is that the vast majority of cities under a plan similar to D'yer's would not show much participation at all. A small minority of cities would do very well with it, but the vast majority would not.

Saw a post by Cyc saying the original issues had never been addresed, so...

Originally posted by Cyc
I would like to see 1.A changed to say that Borders are based on tile count as they were in DG1 with 5 or 6 cities in each Province.

1.B can say each Province shall have a Lt. Governor appointed by the Governor.

1.C.1.D should be moved out to be 1.C.2. This would include 1.C1.E (which would then become 1.C.2.A. This of course would have 1.C.1.F move up to become 1.C.1.D.

Remove 3.A.5

I would like to see an equitable distribution of productive cities, by mandating that instead of centering the 1st province on the capitol, we instead radiate provinces with the capitol as the starting point. This sounds like a good tile count.

My opinion is that Lt. Governors should be chosen in the same manner as deputies in the executive branch, and that vacancies should also be handled in the same manner.

Section 3.A.4, drop "active" in the term active census.

New Idea:

In the past we have talked about constitutional amendments requiring a majority of the people (congress) and a majority of the senate. That has been eliminated in the proposed constitution, and it seems to have been the only place the senate voted, though I could be wrong.

We were talking about moving the budget and possibly other items into the Senate. Those should be subject to a senate vote.

And here's a slightly radical idea: to pass a law (not a constitutional amendment) you need a majority of a public poll, no quorum required, and a majority of the senate. Even more radical would be to require a majority poll or a majority senate vote.

:( Alas, I ignored this thread, not knowing how important and interesting the discussion was.

I just wanted to note that late in DG3, Zorven and I had a great Governor/Mayor relationship. I would make 'strong suggestions' on what I wanted in my build queue. Then he would make suggestions about how I could improve this and expedite that if I changed my mind. His 'door' was always open and I felt included and appreciated.

Our relationship kept me coming back.

Zorven also was quick to put the boot to mayors in his Provence that didn't pull their weight. He would rather take responsibility for a city than wait impatiently until the last minute when an absent Mayors build queue post never arrived.

I don't think this kind of relationship can be codified in the CoL. Given participation levels, I don't think it should be required either.

I do like D'yer's idea of giving more power to the people. Having some structure in the CoL in support of this idea is a refreshing idea, but, I think, unnecessary.

I think the governor of a province should be allowed to set up whatever structure works for him. If there are a lot of citizens available for consultation, the governor, at his discretion and with his appointed mayor's support, can solicit the citizenry for opinion. That open attitude, by itself will likely draw citizens to that province/city.

I think that it is up to a governor to decide how he wants to run his province. Protocols and good examples, but not codification in the CoL.

As I've said before, I like D'yer Mak'er's ideas and I agree with TM90. I am really glad he got to experience the Governor/Mayor relationship the way it is supposed to be. zorven is an excellent Demogame player and I fully expect to see him obtain high Office in DGIV. :thumbsup:

As far as radiating our Province borderlines out from the Capital City in an effort to share the corruption reduction element of the Capital, we definately tried this in DG2. Problem was, we needed an original Province to actually play the begining of the game properly. And a lot depends on the terain we discover and just how quickly we do that. It is very difficult to radiate the borderlines out without seeing the big picture. Then, does the Capital City go in the first Province? How about the second city? How about the third? Can you codify any of this now? No, because we have no idea what the map will lokk like. It will be very hard to do this after the first few weeks of play. Trust me.

The best way to do it is to have a Capital Province that includes the first 5 cities or so, and when we know what the big picture looks like, we can redistrict the map to include any number of Provinces in a pie chart form.

As far as Lt. Governors being chosen in the same manner as Deputies in the Executive Branch, I agree. Thus, 1.B can say each Province shall have a Lt. Governor appointed by the Governor (unless there is a runner-up in the election, then that person can become the Lt. Gov.)

And DS, I don't like your amendment ideas as we've already put too much work into Article I and I believe a quorum for the CoL is needed. I especially don't like the last one as in the begining of the game, changes would be controlled by 1 (or maybe three) citizen(s). We would only have one Province, there fore one Governor/Senator. Even if we selected a default group of three Senators, that would put the whole CoL in the hands of three people. Mmmm, no.

Originally posted by Cyc
As far as Lt. Governors being chosen in the same manner as Deputies in the Executive Branch, I agree. Thus, 1.B can say each Province shall have a Lt. Governor appointed by the Governor (unless there is a runner-up in the election, then that person can become the Lt. Gov.)


I'd rather put everything about deputies in that clause of the CoL. Also, remember that we have decided that deputies will be appointed, not based on election results.

-- Ravensfire

Senate proposal:

(please ignore the numbering - we can figure that out later!)

A. Senate
1. The Senatorial President shall be the Vice-President.
i. The Senatorial President shall be empowered to vote only when a Senate vote is tied.

2. The Senate shall be comprised of all Provincial Governors
i. Should the number of Provinces at the beginning of a term be less than 3, a number of At-Large Governors shall be elected.
a. The number of At-Large Governors shall be that needed to bring the total number of Governors to 3.
b. Should a new province be formed in mid-term, and an At-Large Governor exist, the At-Large Governor receiving the most votes in support during the election shall become the Provincial Governor of the new province.

3. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on the slider settings for the next game play session.
i. The setting with the most votes shall be the approved setting.
ii. The results of this vote shall be posted by the Senatorial President in the game play session instruction thread.
iii. Should the Senate fail to determine the slider settings, the Designated Player shall determine the slider settings.

4. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on all cash rush requests.
i. These requests should be made in the Senate thread, or another designated thread indicated in the first post of the Senate thread.
ii. Each request should be considered individually unless the requestor specified otherwise.
iii. Each request should be voted on seperately.
iv. Each request receiving a majority of votes in support shall be considered approved.
v. Should more requests be approved than funds available, rushes shall be conducted in the order determined by the Designated Player.


-- Ravensfire

You left out other important issues that were already part of this Section, Ravensfire. Why did you cut those pieces out, just to put in the stuff that was suggested?

Originally posted by Cyc
You left out other important issues that were already part of this Section, Ravensfire. Why did you cut those pieces out, just to put in the stuff that was suggested?

My apologies - I missed an explanatory section when I copy-pasted this in.

This is not, by any stretch, a full proposal. It is merely a proposal that covers adding the Slider and Budget responsibilities to the Senate. As part of that, I included the VP as Senate Pres for purposes of a tie-breaking vote, and the At-Large Gov to keep the Senate at a minimum of 3.

In no way was I intended this to replace the larger context, just to add to it.

Hopefully that clarifies things for you. Sorry Cyc!

-- Ravensfire

D. The Legislative Branch
1. The Senate (Governors)
A. Structure
1. The Senate shall be comprised of all Provincial Governors
A. Should the number of provinces at the beginning of a term
be less than 3, a number of At-Large Governors shall be
elected.
1. The number of At-Large Governors shall be that needed to
bring the total number of Governors to 3.
2. Should a new province be formed in mid-term, and an
At-Large Governor exist, the At-Large Governor receiving
the most votes in support during the election shall become
the Provincial Governor of the new province.
2. The Senatorial President shall be the Vice-President
A. The Senatorial President shall be empowered to vote only when
a Senate vote is tied.

B. Provincial borders are geography based and will be approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than 6 cities.
2. All provinces should be of approximately the same size.
3. Provincial borders shall be defined well ahead of expansion.
4. When a defined province grows to 3 cities in the middle of an
term, a temporary governor may be appointed by the President.
A. Any citizen may post a refusal poll

C. A governor organizes the production of their province.
1. A governor organizes the build queues of the cities in thier province
1. A governor organizes the tile use in their province.
2. If a tile is unused, it may be used by a city in a neighboring
province.
3. A governor organizes tile development in their province.
4. A governor may determine if population rushing is to be used
in a city within their province.

D. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on the slider
settings for the next game play session in a Senate Slider poll.
1. The setting with the most votes shall be the approved setting.
2. The results of this vote shall be posted by the Senatorial President
in the game play session instruction thread.
3. Should the Senate fail to determine the slider settings, the
Designated Player shall determine the slider settings.

E. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on all cash rush
requests in a Cash Rush poll.
1. These requests should be made in the Senate thread, or another
designated thread indicated in the first post of the Senate thread.
2. Each request should be considered individually unless the requestor
specified otherwise.
3. Each request should be voted on seperately.
4. Each request receiving a majority of votes in support shall be
considered approved.
5. Should more requests be approved than funds available, rushes shall
be conducted in the order determined by the Designated Player.

2. The Congress (Citizens)
A. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.

3. Legislative Polls
A. Senate Polls
1. Slider Polls
A. Proposal shall list all options under consideration.
B. Poll shall be in open response format (normal post option, not
a poll).
C. The minimum duration for this poll is 24 hours.
2. Cash Rush Polls
A. Proporal shall list all cash rush requests.
B. Poll shall be in open response format (normal post option, not
a poll).
C. The minimum duration for this poll is 24 hours.

B. Amending the Code of Laws (Congressional Polls)
1. Polls to amend the Code of Laws shall be posted by the Judiciary
upon succesful completion of a Judicial Review.
2. Polls are to be in anonymous responder format (standard Forum
poll option).
A. Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format.
B. Polls will stay open until:
1. All votes have been cast, or;
2. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot
affect the outcome of the vote, or;
3. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
1. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
C. The quorum for changes in the Code of Laws is 1/2 of the
census.
D. A simple majority of support is required to adopt or alter a law.


-- Ravensfire

'Their' is mispelled in C.1.

Though I may expand on the concept of a refusal poll somewhere in the CoL, it looks good so far.

Octavian,

The refusal poll stuff is actually a placeholder that was left in there by accident. I'm using the idea proposed by Rik in the Appointment thread -

Any citizen may request a refusal poll within 24 hours of the appointement.
Should a majority of citizens voting in the poll reject the candidate, another
must be chosen.


My bad - missed the placeholder before posting. Alternatively, we could abstract the concept of a refusal poll - define it once in the CoL, and reference everyone else. That way, anytime we want a refusal poll, we can be sure we are using the same definition. (Gee, is my programming background coming through on that? Abstract a poll. I need a vacation!)

-- Ravensfire

Change D.1.B to tile based, not geography based. The tile based system will adhere to the terrain features as much as possible but will not be required to follow a terrain feature, such as a river or a wooded area. D.1.B.1 and D.1.B.2 follow the tile based structure so there shouldn't be a problem here.

Originally posted by Cyc
Change D.1.B to tile based, not geography based. The tile based system will adhere to the terrain features as much as possible but will not be required to follow a terrain feature, such as a river or a wooded area. D.1.B.1 and D.1.B.2 follow the tile based structure so there shouldn't be a problem here.

I see where you are going - try to set provincial boundaries based on how the cities will use the tiles. So if a river goes through a city's radius, we don't care because that isn't the boundary of the province.

I can live with that - does anyone object to such a process?

-- Ravensfire

(happy now, Cyc? :groucho: )

I am actually referring to the 126-tile process used in DG1 that was pretty much a success. Late in the game redistricting was allowed to better serve the nation. But the wording here is important, as I believe this allows the DG1 system.

Originally posted by Cyc
I am actually referring to the 126-tile process used in DG1 that was pretty much a success. Late in the game redistricting was allowed to better serve the nation. But the wording here is important, as I believe this allows the DG1 system.

After a brief search, I could not find anything about that system. Could you explain it here? Thanks!

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


After a brief search, I could not find anything about that system. Could you explain it here? Thanks!

-- Ravensfire

Here's a link from the Provincial Borders discussion that took place in the begining of November, where I re-introduced the system.

Tile-based Borders (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=67452&perpage=20&display=&pagenumber=1)

If you hold on, I can go back to the DG1 forums and get a more detailed summary for it.
Here's a detailed description of the system. It icludes maps, so those on dial-up may have to wait a bit to see them. This is the second part of the description in response to donsig's request. The first part is on a previous page.

126-tile system (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=270315#post270315)

Here's the Council Vote that approved the system.

Council Vote (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=22011)

It is also in the DG1 History Section of the Demogame Website. (http://demogame.civfanatics.net/civ3/html/index.html)

Sorry for the delay in responding to this.

The 126 tile looks good - the justification for it is very reasonable.

I'd be quite happy with such a process.

-- Ravensfire

Current proposal (includes tile based + production equity attempt). Note that amending the CoL is now it's own article.

D. The Legislative Branch
1. The Senate (Governors)
A. Structure
1. The Senate shall be comprised of all Provincial Governors
A. Should the number of provinces at the beginning of a term
be less than 3, a number of At-Large Governors shall be
elected.
1. The number of At-Large Governors shall be that needed to
bring the total number of Governors to 3.
2. Should a new province be formed in mid-term, and an
At-Large Governor exist, the At-Large Governor receiving
the most votes in support during the election shall become
the Provincial Governor of the new province.
2. The Senatorial President shall be the Vice-President
A. The Senatorial President shall be empowered to vote only when
a Senate vote is tied.

B. Provincial borders are tile-based and will be approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than 6 cities and approximately 126 tiles
2. All provinces should be of approximately the same size.
3. All provinces should contain approximately the same number of productive cities.
4. Provincial borders shall be defined well ahead of expansion.
5. When a defined province grows to 3 cities in the middle of an
term, a temporary governor may be appointed by the President.
A. Any citizen may post a refusal poll

C. A governor organizes the production of their province.
1. A governor organizes the build queues of the cities in thier province
1. A governor organizes the tile use in their province.
2. If a tile is unused, it may be used by a city in a neighboring
province.
3. A governor organizes tile development in their province.
4. A governor may determine if population rushing is to be used
in a city within their province.

D. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on the slider
settings for the next game play session in a Senate Slider poll.
1. The setting with the most votes shall be the approved setting.
2. The results of this vote shall be posted by the Senatorial President
in the game play session instruction thread.
3. Should the Senate fail to determine the slider settings, the
Designated Player shall determine the slider settings.

E. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on all cash rush
requests in a Cash Rush poll.
1. These requests should be made in the Senate thread, or another
designated thread indicated in the first post of the Senate thread.
2. Each request should be considered individually unless the requestor
specified otherwise.
3. Each request should be voted on seperately.
4. Each request receiving a majority of votes in support shall be
considered approved.
5. Should more requests be approved than funds available, rushes shall
be conducted in the order determined by the Designated Player.

2. The Congress (Citizens)
A. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.

3. Legislative Polls
A. Senate Polls
1. Slider Polls
A. Proposal shall list all options under consideration.
B. Poll shall be in open response format (normal post option, not
a poll).
C. The minimum duration for this poll is 24 hours.
2. Cash Rush Polls
A. Proporal shall list all cash rush requests.
B. Poll shall be in open response format (normal post option, not
a poll).
C. The minimum duration for this poll is 24 hours.

X. Amending the Code of Laws
1. Polls to amend the Code of Laws shall be posted by the Judiciary
upon succesful completion of a Judicial Review.
2. Polls are to be in anonymous responder format (standard Forum
poll option).
A. Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format.
B. Polls will stay open until:
1. All votes have been cast, or;
2. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot
affect the outcome of the vote, or;
3. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
1. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
C. The quorum for changes in the Code of Laws is 1/2 of the
census.
D. A simple majority of support is required to adopt or alter a law.


-- Ravensfire

Immediate concern - what is a "productive city" - DaveShack - any ideas on a good way to state this? Or anyone else?

-- Ravensfire

I believe the term "productive city" was directly related to "equitable distribution". In other words DS wanted to more equally distribute productivity, by radiating our Provincial borderlines out from the Capital City in an effort to share the corruption reduction element of the Capital City, in each Province. Think pie chart. Each Provincial pie slice would point directly at the Capital City, thus getting as many corruption-free tiles as the next Province. This would allow "equal distribution of productive cities. DS is hoping to reduce the number of Provinces containing only "fishing villages" because of their distance from the Capital City. This is why he wishes that our Provincial Borders will "radiate" from the Capital City.

Is this correct DaveShack?

That's a difficult one to define. Generally, I think the idea that we should have radiating provinces is a silly one. The goal it attempts is a good one, but figuring out the distribution will be hard. Don't forget the possibility that we'll move the palace - reconfiguring the provinces after that will be an absolute nightmare.
Also, what if our empire stretches out the way it did in DG2? If you'll remember, we won because we controlled 66% of the earth's surface. Even at half that size, we'd have provinces that would be very difficult to define if we tried to divide up good cities equally.
The reason provinces worked in the first place is because people could at least have a fairly good idea of where each province was located, since we all had a general idea of what features of the terrain seperated the nation.

Face it - for provinces to be at least coherently defined, a system of radiating provinces just won't work. They will be difficult to divide in the first place, and confusion will inevitably set in as no one would truly be sure where each city belongs.

I think the terrain will also make it difficult to make the pie shaped provinces difficult to balance. A mountainous region will never have as much food production and a desert area will be poor no matter what our workers do to improve it.

There will always be poor provinces and rich provinces. Wealth sharing will come through gp, cash rushing, worker and population redistribution. I think given the constrants of terrain and chronology, it is impossible to make all provinces equal.

That being said, it does seem unfair to have the capital province straddling all the best (i.e. closest to the capital) cities without 'spreading the wealth'. I don't think the province borders need to be static. We will start with one province. When the number of cities increases to the point where a second province can be 'spawned', province boundaries should be re-negotiated....

... I just looked at some of the thread on this issue, and I come to the conclusion that I don't know Jack. Carry on fellas.

I think the proposal outlined by Ravensfire looks fine. However, I think B.3 (All provinces should contain approximately the same number of productive cities) would be too difficult to execute. I sympathize with the goal but it would be highly dependent on the terrain presented to us as to whether it is feasable or not. I think we should define provinces as they are required and not worry so much that some provinces are not "equal" to others. The more powers we give the Senate the more "equal" the governors become. Heck, maybe some governors don't want alot of work planning city production ;)

Okay, bit more time to think about things.

First, toss the balanced production stuff - rely upon the citizens to help with that. If people want unbalanced production, give it to them.

Second, put in a clause explicitly allowing redistricting. Say, must meet quorum with 2/3 support of redistricting. All provincial borders may then be redrawn. New borders then accepted as usual, changes not official until they are accepted.

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire, that sounds fine. Also, shouldn't section D.1.B actually be D.2.B as it is a function of the Congress and not the Senate?

Provincial borders still need a bit of work, imho. I'd removed D.1.B.1 as well, since it's an unnecessary restriction. We should be keeping our options open, in my opinion.

A redistricting cluase would help as well.

Provincial borders:

D.
2.
B. Provincial borders shall be determined and approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than approximately 126 tiles
2. All provinces should be of approximately the same size.
3. Provincial borders shall be defined well ahead of expansion.
4. When a defined province grows to 3 cities in the middle of an
term, a temporary governor may be appointed by the President.
A. Any citizen may post a refusal poll for the appointment.
5. Any citizen may request a redistricting poll be held by creating
a new thread in the Citizen's sub-forum with the request. Should
more than 2 other citizens second the request, the Minister of
Internal Affairs shall create a redistricting poll.
a. This poll shall ask the question "Shall we redefine the boundaries
of our Provinces?" and be open for 4 days.
b. If the poll meets a quorum level of 2/3 the census and 2/3 of the
votes support the question, the Minister of the Interior shall
immediately conduct a discussion on redefining the boundaries of
all Provinces.
c. Once all boundaries have been created, the entire plan shall be
polled for acceptance. There shall be no quorum level, and the
poll shall be open for 4 days. If 2/3 of the votes accept the
proposal, the new boundaries shall become active with the next
election.


For redistricing, I put the MIA in charge simply because *someone* needs to run the discussion. This makes someone start the process. The process is fairly detailed - maybe move the details stuff to CoS?

The part about basing the size of provinces on tiles needs some more discussion though - some want it, some don't. You'll note that I removed the city restriction - I think if a Governor wants a tight province, let 'em! Obviously, that can be readded based on feedback.

-- Ravensfire

Some comments on Ravensfire's last revision:

Section 1 - A province should contain no more than approximately 126 tiles

How can you define "no more than approximately"? It should either be "no more than 126" or "should contain approximately 126".

Section 4 typo- change an to a (middle of an term)

Section 5 - I think the request should specify a specific province(s). If a citizen has a problem with only one area of a province and passes step b, then we open a bag of worms by allowing all provinces to be re-worked. This could cause many request and alot of debate to restructure all the provinces instead of just addressing the one point originally made.

I think that Section 1 should be stricken entirely from the proposal, and either have no limit in its place or an (approximate) number of cities that the province should contain. Also, section 4 should include some mention of at-large governors. As for section 5, I think that it should be allowed to specify specific province(s), and strike section 5.a; I would much rather see discussion and then a poll rather than a poll before discussion that will be followed by another poll. The provincial border change could require more than two citizens to second it during discussion, and the poll at the end should have a quorum, and I think a simple majority of the census should suffice.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I think that Section 1 should be stricken entirely from the proposal, and either have no limit in its place or an (approximate) number of cities that the province should contain. Also, section 4 should include some mention of at-large governors. As for section 5, I think that it should be allowed to specify specific province(s), and strike section 5.a; I would much rather see discussion and then a poll rather than a poll before discussion that will be followed by another poll. The provincial border change could require more than two citizens to second it during discussion, and the poll at the end should have a quorum, and I think a simple majority of the census should suffice.

I don't think section 4 needs a mention of it. The clause defining the at-large position states that if an at-large gov. exists, they get the province. While we could restate that here, it only complicates things.

Section 5 - Resizing only a couple makes sense. I will disagree with you about the poll/discussion/poll stuff. Once we create a province border - it should be pretty tough to change it - people take pride in the province they call their own, changing it should require some effort. The first poll is to see if there is enough support to change the borders - only then should new borders be discussed. Section A needs to stay.

-- Ravensfire

Here's a thought:

To whom shall we give the power to name/rename provinces?

We traditionally gave the privelidge of naming a province to the first governor of that province. We never did have a system for renaming a province, though that debate came up once or twice in DG2 (ref.: Southwest Province).

It also came up about "The North Province". I don't believe we need to change the name of Provinces. That would be a cruel way of snubbing someone's work.

I don't have a problem with limiting the size of provinces if for no other reason than it is something different than last game.

I agree with Ravensfire that changing the provincial borders should be difficult and therefore I don't have a problem with his proposal.

As far as naming provinces, we should probably discuss that in the Naming Rights thread.

Okay, there appears to be ONE issue left for this section - province borders. Please use this as a starting point and let's try to resolve this. We have drug our collective tails on this, it's got to get wrapped up soon.

Issue summary - please keep answers short and generalized
Province borders
Question 1: Do we want to have provinces of similar size?
Question 1a: If yes, how?

Question 2: Do we want to have provinces of similar production capactity?
Questions 2a: If yes, how?

NEW QUESTION
Question 3: Do we want to have provinces with similar numbers of cities?
Question 3a: If yes, how? Does the final world size impact this decision?

Provincial Naming
Question 1: Does this belong here, or in the naming rights section?

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

EDIT: Question added

Province borders
Question 1: Do we want to have provinces of similar size?
Question 1a: If yes, how?

Yes, I believe we should return to the tried and true method of Provinces being standardized with the 126 tile program. This makes each Province contain approximately the same amount of cities. With this method, each Province will have 5 to 6 cities without any uneccessary crowding.

Question 2: Do we want to have provinces of similar production capactity?
Questions 2a: If yes, how?

All Provinces will have similar production capacity, ;) it's just the corruption levels will be different. :) The corruption levels in any given Province will change though, throughout the game with improvements and the placement of the Forbidden Palace. It's a Governor's responsibility to do the best with what he has available to him.

Provincial Naming
Question 1: Does this belong here, or in the naming rights section?

Of course it belongs here. This is a major perk for the Governors and should be founded in the CoL. Naming Rights of cities and terrain features are minor when compared with this. By placing this "right" in the CoL legislation, it will mark the separation and improve the status of Governors.

Question 1: Do we want to have provinces of similar size?
Question 1a: If yes, how?

Yes. I would like provinces to be approximately the same size in terms of number of cities. I think this can be accomplished by either limiting the number of tiles per province or by specifying the max number of cities per province. Either is fine with me.

Question 2: Do we want to have provinces of similar production capactity?
Questions 2a: If yes, how?

No. I think it would be too difficult to make sure all provinces are equal in this regard. Lets see how well some governors make lemonade ;)


Question 3: Do we want to have provinces with similar numbers of cities?
Question 3a: If yes, how? Does the final world size impact this decision?

Answered above.


Provincial Naming
Question 1: Does this belong here, or in the naming rights section?


I don't have a problem listing that "right" here, but would like to see all related laws together, that is I would like to see it in the Naming Rights CoS.

Question 1: Do we want to have provinces of similar size?
Question 1a: If yes, how?
Yes. The should be tile based, but not absolute. Allow a small amount of variance so we have nice, even borders - 3-5 tiles max variance.

Question 2: Do we want to have provinces of similar production capactity?
Questions 2a: If yes, how?
Yes, but not legislated. This should be up to the people as they plan the borders.

Question 3: Do we want to have provinces with similar numbers of cities?
Question 3a: If yes, how? Does the final world size impact this decision?
Yes, but only roughly the same. Allow some variance. World size should affect the number of cities per province.

Provincial Naming
Question 1: Does this belong here, or in the naming rights section?
Province naming belongs in the Naming Rights standard, as it was in DG2.

-- Ravensfire

RE: Provincial Naming

I obviously don't know all the history here, but as a newbie, if I were looking for where provinces were named I would tend to look in the logical place - somewhere that dealt with naming things - the naming rights section. We can still give that right to the 1st Governer though.

Cyc,

At this point, from the posts it's 3-1 to put naming in the CoS Naming section. I've got a few people coming over tonight (only 60 or so, with about 300+ jello shots to greet them!), so won't touch it until tomorrow afternoon.

At that time, I'm planning on going with the posted support. Sorry bud - looks like the CoS for provincial naming.

-- Ravensfire

Here's another thought. We've agreed that the Senate shoud handle cash rush requests, but what about requests for cash from other departments?

Governors aren't the only spenders. The Trade and Technology Ministry may request a some gold in order to complete a trade with a foreign nation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs could want some gold to build an embassy, plant a spy, or run some espionage.

I simply suggest that the proposal be modified to allow the Senate to approve all budgetary requests, not just those for rushes.

I agree with Octavian X. The Senate should approve all spending. How could we have missed this great idea? Good catch :goodjob:

V1.1

D. The Legislative Branch
1. The Senate (Governors)
A. Structure
1. The Senate shall be comprised of all Provincial Governors
A. Should the number of provinces at the beginning of a term
be less than 3, a number of At-Large Governors shall be
elected.
1. The number of At-Large Governors shall be that needed to
bring the total number of Governors to 3.
2. Should a new province be formed in mid-term, and an
At-Large Governor exist, the At-Large Governor receiving
the most votes in support during the election shall become
the Provincial Governor of the new province.
2. The Senatorial President shall be the Vice-President
A. The Senatorial President shall be empowered to vote only when
a Senate vote is tied.

B. A governor organizes the production of their province.
1. A governor organizes the build queues of the cities in thier province
1. A governor organizes the tile use in their province.
2. If a tile is unused, it may be used by a city in a neighboring
province.
3. A governor organizes tile development in their province.
4. A governor may determine if population rushing is to be used
in a city within their province.

C. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on the slider
settings for the next game play session in a Senate Slider poll.
1. The setting with the most votes shall be the approved setting.
2. The results of this vote shall be posted by the Senatorial President
in the game play session instruction thread.
3. Should the Senate fail to determine the slider settings, the
Designated Player shall determine the slider settings.

D. The Senate shall meet prior to each turn chat and vote on all cash
requests in a Cash Rush poll.
1. These requests should be made in the Senate thread, or another
designated thread indicated in the first post of the Senate thread.
2. Each request should be considered individually unless the requestor
specified otherwise.
3. Each request should be voted on seperately.
4. Each request receiving a majority of votes in support shall be
considered approved.
5. Should more requests be approved than funds available, rushes shall
be conducted in the order determined by the Designated Player.

2. The Congress (Citizens)
A. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.

B. Provincial borders shall be determined and approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than approximately 126 tiles
2. Provincial borders shall be defined well ahead of expansion.
3. When a defined province grows to 3 cities in the middle of an
term, and no At-Large Governor exists, a temporary governor
must be appointed by the President.
A. Any citizen may post a refusal poll for the appointment.
4. Any citizen may request a redistricting poll be held by creating
a new thread in the Citizen's sub-forum with the request. Should
more than 2 other citizens second the request, the Minister of
Internal Affairs shall create a redistricting poll.
a. This poll shall ask the question "Shall we redefine the boundaries
of our Provinces?" and be open for 4 days.
b. If the poll meets a quorum level of 2/3 the census and 2/3 of the
votes support the question, the Minister of the Interior shall
immediately conduct a discussion on redefining the boundaries of
all Provinces.
c. Once all boundaries have been created, the entire plan shall be
polled for acceptance. There shall be no quorum level, and the
poll shall be open for 4 days. If 2/3 of the votes accept the
proposal, the new boundaries shall become active with the next
election.

3. Legislative Polls
A. Senate Polls
1. Slider Polls
A. Proposal shall list all options under consideration.
B. Poll shall be in open response format (normal post option, not
a poll).
C. The minimum duration for this poll is 24 hours.
2. Cash Rush Polls
A. Proporal shall list all cash rush requests.
B. Poll shall be in open response format (normal post option, not
a poll).
C. The minimum duration for this poll is 24 hours.

X. Amending the Code of Laws
1. Polls to amend the Code of Laws shall be posted by the Judiciary
upon succesful completion of a Judicial Review.
2. Polls are to be in anonymous responder format (standard Forum
poll option).
A. Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format.
B. Polls will stay open until:
1. All votes have been cast, or;
2. A quorum has responded and further votes cannot
affect the outcome of the vote, or;
3. The posted poll closing time has been reached.
1. Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours.
C. The quorum for changes in the Code of Laws is 1/2 of the
census.
D. A simple majority of support is required to adopt or alter a law.

Changelog
V1.1
* Moved D.1.B to D.2
* Clarified D.2.B.3 to ensure an At-Large Gov. gets a new province, if one exists
* Redid D.2.B - tile based, approx. 126 tiles per province
* Redid D.1.D to remove "rush", Senate now handles all "Cash requests"

-- Ravensfire

Zorven has posted a discussion on a proposal to amend the CoL on elections. This has raised a few questions in my mind concerning the Senate which I feel are more of a general nature and would be better raised here than in something concerning a specific election situation.

What happens to the Senate if there is no VP? Maybe one simply hasn’t yet been appointed or possibly even the presidential election is in dispute. Who leads it etc?

Who has the deciding vote in Senatorial votes if there is no VP – we have 3 governors including the 2 at-large ones at the moment, but if one isn’t around, abstains, or even if there are an even number of governors, then the vote could be tied – how is the deadlock broken? Or are the Slider Polls and Cash Request Polls (the Designated Player decides) the only ones? Zorven in his election amendment suggests the tie breaking vote should pass to the President then the Executive Council, but if we don’t have a VP because there is no President yet and the Exec Council also ties (possible as there are 4 of them) who next? Do we go down the CoC?

At what point is the Senate considered to be formed? As soon as elections are completed? If so just the governor elections, or all the elections?

Here’s hoping that someone who knows their way around these laws better than me will have the answers. At the moment, I just seem to be constantly confused.

Furiey,

You raise some good points. Let me address them as best I can.

What happens to the Senate if there is no VP? Maybe one simply hasn’t yet been appointed or possibly even the presidential election is in dispute. Who leads it etc?

I suppose if there is no VP at the time of a vote that the issue does not pass and a new attempt will need to be made. However, I feel that the likelyhood of this happening is slim because the VP position is appointed and can be filled fairly quickly.

It appears that a VP for Term 1 has not been appointed yet because Rik Meleet is waiting for the Appointment section of the CoL to pass ratification (it is at the polls now). I assume he will appoint a VP as soon as that poll closes.

"Who leads it?" I assume you mean who leads the Senate in the absence of a VP. I don't think it is specified in code, but would assume the Senator with the most votes would fill in. Although I don't know that there are any duties or responsibilities assigned to the President of the Senate.

I suppose we could be cautious and add that the President shall vote in the absence of a VP.


Who has the deciding vote in Senatorial votes if there is no VP – we have 3 governors including the 2 at-large ones at the moment, but if one isn’t around, abstains, or even if there are an even number of governors, then the vote could be tied – how is the deadlock broken? Or are the Slider Polls and Cash Request Polls (the Designated Player decides) the only ones? Zorven in his election amendment suggests the tie breaking vote should pass to the President then the Executive Council, but if we don’t have a VP because there is no President yet and the Exec Council also ties (possible as there are 4 of them) who next? Do we go down the CoC?

My answer to your first part ("who has the deciding vote if there is no VP") is the same as above. In regard to Sliders and Cash Rush ties, again the VP would settle the tie. If a VP is abscent, Sliders are determined by the Designated Player as specified in D.1.C.3. Cash rushes would fail to pass if there was a tie and no VP.

I don't understand how we can have no President in you next line of questioning.


At what point is the Senate considered to be formed? As soon as elections are completed? If so just the governor elections, or all the elections?

All offices are effective on the 1st of the month following the election. For special elections the office holder takes power at the close of the poll.

Thanks Zorven - my mind has been going round and round in circles (as you could probably tell from the very confused post) trying to work out what would happen if each of the various offices was in dispute. The bit about no president was thinking what if the Presidential election was the one in dispute, but then I suppose not having a VP to have the tie breaking vote in the Senate would be the least of our troubles!

Originally posted by Cyc
I believe the term "productive city" was directly related to "equitable distribution". In other words DS wanted to more equally distribute productivity, by radiating our Provincial borderlines out from the Capital City in an effort to share the corruption reduction element of the Capital City, in each Province. Think pie chart. Each Provincial pie slice would point directly at the Capital City, thus getting as many corruption-free tiles as the next Province. This would allow "equal distribution of productive cities. DS is hoping to reduce the number of Provinces containing only "fishing villages" because of their distance from the Capital City. This is why he wishes that our Provincial Borders will "radiate" from the Capital City.

Is this correct DaveShack?

Sorry this response took so long, we had out of town family here for a week, and I didn't see the question.

This is exactly what I plan to propose during term 1, geography permitting. Place the capital at one corner of a 126-tile block, and there should be 3 other high production provinces which result, pretty much automatically. The only likely snag is if we start on a coast.

It will be much harder to do this with the FP, but not completely impossible. We'll still automatically get at least 2 productive provinces from a FP, as long as it is not dead center in a province.

Regarding slider settings, can we assume that settings which change partway through the play session are valid?

Regarding slider settings and cash rush requests, a majority poll of the whole congress should carry higher precedence than a senate vote. Is that covered somewhere?

The cash rush provision should also include funds for unit improvements, embassies, spy missions, and other uses, other than trade.

The Trade & Technology ministry and the Senate must coordinate their activites -- in particular the effect of gpt trades on slider settings.

Slider settings should be in terms of % for lux, and in terms of +/- gpt for science. Example:

Set lux to 10%. Set science to the highest percentage which falls within the range +50gpt to -20gpt, except that if more than one rate results in the same number of turns of research, select the lowest rate. Check the setting two turns before research is completed and lower it to the lowest level which remains 2 turns. Likewise lower it when one turn remains. Return it to the specified gpt range the same turn the tech is researched, unless specified otherwise.

DaveShack,

As far as the format, usage, etc of the slider settings, that should be left entirely up to the Senate to handle. So, to answer your question, could the slider setting change mid-session - of course. It all depends on what the Senate wants.

The wording on the most recent proposal was revised to state "Cash Requests", so it will cover all uses of our cash. The Senate is truly in charge of the purse strings now. Yes, that does mean coordination with other departments, but that's always been part of the fun, right?

You comment about the Congress overruling the Senate is true of any leader, any instruction. By our Constitution, our leaders are duty-bound to follow the Will of the People, or face a Citizen Complaint. The Citizen Rights' section of the Code of Laws has a nice method for citizens to police their elected officials.

So yes, the Congress can overrule the Senate, just as they can any other instruction from any other leader.

-- Ravensfire

Provincial Naming
Question 1: Does this belong here, or in the naming rights section?

since naming the provinces is a bigger issue than naming cities, i think that they should be discussed and polled. that would give citizen groups like the The French Culture Society (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72558) and other citizens who care a lot about naming an oppurtunity to make their voice heard.


one more thing: what about provincial deputies? is the elected govenor able to appoint its own deputies or are we going to use the DG3 system where the runner-up in the election is considered elected the deputy?

I’ve come to realise that the Senatorial President (with the tie breaking vote) is the Vice President. This puts a non-elected (ie: appointed) position with the tie breaking vote over a group of elected officials. Is this what is really wanted?

Originally posted by Furiey
I’ve come to realise that the Senatorial President (with the tie breaking vote) is the Vice President. This puts a non-elected (ie: appointed) position with the tie breaking vote over a group of elected officials. Is this what is really wanted?

Yes, it was.

The Senate has significant responsibilities now, ones that may involve several important votes each game session - the budget and the slider. As such, these need to be set. There will be times that the Senate will be tied over competing proposals. While taken from the US Senate, it also makes a great deal of sense for the VP to serve as the President of the Senate.

In the absence of the President, the VP is first on the Chain of Command. Should the Presidency be declared vacant, the VP will take over that position. By having the VP involved with the Senate on these matters, they will become familiar with the issues and demands of each Province in a manner they haven't before. This will only help them in the future.

Finally, and the simple explanation, if there is a tie, it needs to be broken someone. This was the mechanism chosen.

-- Ravensfire

The poll for amending the CoL has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74219)

-- Ravensfire

The poll for Section D has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74221).

-- Ravensfire