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

Keep in mind, with the reworking of our Constitution, this section may require an entire facelift.

H. Appointed Positions
1. Leaders in Executive, Judiciary and Provincial Government (office vacant mid-
term or not filled during elections)
A. Deputy is promoted to Leader. If there is no Deputy then:
1. Appointed by President.
2. Leader is confirmed by a Confirmation Council Vote. Simple
majority required.
2. Departmental Deputies (office vacant mid-term or not filled during elections)
A. Designated Chat Representative is promoted to Deputy. If there is no
Designated Chat Representative then:
1. Department Leader appoints a deputy.
2. Deputy is confirmed by a poll of the citizenry. Simple majority
required.
3. Designated Chat Representative
A. Appointed by Leader.
B. Confirmed by a poll of the citizenry. Simple majority required.
4. Deputy Governor
A. Appointed by Provincial Governor
B. Confirmed by a poll of the citizenry. Simple majority required.
5. Pro-Tem Justice, Defendant and Advocate
A. Appointed by Public Defendant and Judge Advocate, respectively.
B. Confirmed by a poll of the citizenry. Simple majority required.

I think we should take out all these silly confirmation polls as they are time consuming yet unnecessary.

2.A.5.A should also include the Chief Justice.

We should remove the confirmation polls and replace them with: "any citizen may request a poll to refuse the appointee. Simple majority is required. "

I don't want an automatic poll every time someone is appointed, but I want to give the citizens a tool to prevent someone from being appointed at will.

P.S. Pardon my English; please correct any language-errors in my proposal.

Like the idea Rik! How about 24 hours to object?

Couple of comments:

-- Fill all vacant positions after an election via another election, DG3 style.

-- Remove the chat rep position - we didn't use it in DG3, and don't need it here.

-- Remove all references to "Department" in section 2.

-- The Judiciary should use a different system for filling a vacant office. Should a position become absent, the remaining two Justices and the President form a committee to recommend a replacement. Barring a challenge (see Rik's proposal), the candidate is elevated to office. If more than one Judicial office is vacant, a Moderator will join the committee. (Clause 1 only - I can somewhat handle a pro-tem Justice in clause 2 for temporary replacement only!)

Reasons: Although seldom used, the Judiciary is one of the most demanding offices in the game - we need to make sure the candidates are up to the task.

-- Ravensfire

24 hours would in general suffice. I can imagine specific situations (christmas, power-outages, defect computers, (inter)national holidays etc.) which would create a need for more time, but the "objection-poller" can clarify his/her delay whe posting the poll. Of course are reasons as: "I had no time to post as I went to bed early / forgot / wasn't at home for the weekend" not valid reasons.

Couple of things that should be added to conform with earlier polls/decisions.

Under section 2:

-- No citizen that holds an elected position may be a deputy
-- No citizen may be a deputy for more than one elected position

Should be self-explanitory.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
Couple of things that should be added to conform with earlier polls/decisions.

Under section 2:

-- No citizen that holds an elected position may be a deputy
-- No citizen may be a deputy for more than one elected position

Should be self-explanitory.

-- Ravensfire

I am 100% Strongly against this. For one thing, I beleve that any citizen that is in an elected possition should be alowed to be a deputy. I also beleve that all citizens should be alowed to hold more than 1 deputy possition (Max up to 3)

CG, I believe your days of holding multiple deputy positions are over. A person can only stretch themselves so far. :)

Something else we need to cover - and haven't in the past - when is an office considered vacant? What happens if an office is declared vacant, the deputy takes over, and the former holder returns? What if said former holder has a really good excuse - and a note from their mother?

-- Ravensfire

For the purposes of this article, I think that offices are only vacant when none are named. We nee another section to deal with absenteeism.

Somewhere, we need to cover:


Planned, permanent vacancies (retirement, resignation, ouster)
Unplanned, permanent (typically just never hear from him/her again)
Planned, temporary (vacation, etc.)
Unplanned, temporary (lost connectivity, illness, etc.)


Suggestions

deputy promoted, appoint to fill in deputy -- who should appoint new deputy, outgoing leader, new leader, other
Need a definition of how long to wait. Deputy needs power to run office after some short amount of time, and then is appointed to take over after some longer time.
Deputy takes over, but no need for an appointment because the office isn't really vacant.
Need to define a timeframe for deputy to take over. Only real difference between this and unplanned, permanent is that the leader eventually comes back.


We also need to define somewhere the circumstances under which a leader can explicitly delegate a defined set of responsibilities without taking an absense.

I think that for planned permanent vacancies, the deputy should take over in the ordinary manner. For unplanned vacancies of any sort, the deputy could simply take over for the whole term de-facto, but never officially ascend to that position during that term, just in case the leader had an internet failure of some sort or something to that effect. I think a waiting period of 48-72 hours makes the most sense. For planned temporary vacancies, the deputy could assume control of the office during the time that leader is supposed to be gone, with the vacancy becoming unplanned if it extends longer than expected without notice by that leader.

If I recall, a suggestion was made that should a leader fail to post instructions at least 24 hours prior to the start of a turn chat, the deputy for that position is empowered to post instructions. I'd like to toss that idea out. It's a great way to cover unexpected absences for the immediate needs of the turn chat.

The next step would be to declare the office abandoned. I propose that, should a leader fail to post instructions for 2 turns, any citizen may propose that the office is abandoned. This should be done as a post in the Citizen thread. The Chief Justice shall then send a message to that leader, and post in the abadon thread that a message has been sent. Should that leader fail to respond within 48 hours of the PM, the leader is removed from office and the office is considered vacant.

So, here's the proposal:

Nothing to see here, keep moving!

-- Ravensfire

Since I'm on a roll, here's an omnibus proposal for this issue.


H. Vacant Positions
1. Offices that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled through elections.

2. Offices that become vacant in mid-term shall be filled by appointing the deputy for
that position to the office.
a. A vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by the remaining members of the Judiciary
and the President determining the replacement.
1. 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.

3. Should a leader fail to post instructions for 2 consecutive game play sessions, any
citizen may request that the office be declared abandoned by creatin a thread in the
Citizen forum.
a. The Chief Justice shall then send a PM to the office holder, notifying them of the
request.
b. The Chief Justice shall then post in the request thread that the PM has been sent.
c. Should the office holder fail to reply within 48 hours of the PM, the office holder
is removed and the office is considered vacant.

I. Deputies
1. Each elected office in the Executive and Legislative branch shall have a Deputy. This
Deputy is appointed by the office holder.
a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the appointment. Should a
majority of citizens voting in the poll reject the candidate, another citizen must be chosen.

2. The Deputy for a position may post instructions for that position should no
instructions be posted within 24 hours of the scheduled start of the game play session.

3. Should an office holder post that they will be absent for a certain time period, the
Deputy is empowered with all duties and responsibilities of the position for that period.
a. The Deputy shall relinquish all such powers upon return of the office holder.
b. Should the Deputy fail to post instructions while such empowered, the Designated
Player shall perform the actions of that office as they deem to be within the Will
of the People, using such information as is available to them.
c. A member of the Judiciary, subject to approval by the other members of the Judiciary,
may appoint any citizen to serve in their office.

4. No citizen already holding an elected office may be a deputy for any other office.

5. No citizen may be the deputy for more than one elected office.

Whew - have fun!

-- Ravensfire

EDIT: reformatted for clarity

Taking care of all this planned,unplanned stuff in the CoL is all fine and good. I think we should make up a Section for Absenteeism.

But this Section deals with Appointed poositions. Appointments can be made because of absenteeism, but stating the specifics for that in this Section is not neccessary.

Proposal:

H. Appointed Positions
1. Leaders in Executive, Judiciary and Provincial Government
a.(office vacant mid-term) The President shall appoint the Deputy as Leader of the Department. If no Deputy exists, the President shall appoint a suitable replacement.
b.(not filled during elections) If the position is not filled by election, then there isn't a Deputy, or if there is, that Deputy can not serve as Leader by choice. Therefore the President shall appoint a suitable individual to fill the Leader postion.

2. Deputy Positions
a. Departmental Deputies shall be the runner-up of election for that Department, if there is no runner-up then the Departmental Leader shall appoint a suitable replacement. A Leader may also dismiss a Deputy if he feels that Deputy is not fulfilling his responsibilities. Said Leader may then appoint the Chat Representative to the Deputy postion, unless there is no Chat Representative, then the Leader will appoint a suitable replacement.

3. Chat Representatives
a. Departmental Leaders may appoint suitable individuals to fill the Chat Representative positions.

I suggest someone start that Section concerning absenteeism, as I don't believe it goes in the CoS and should be dealt with in the CoL.

Cyc,

It's true that the title of the DG2 section is appointed positions. In reality, it dealt more with deputies than anything else. I renamed it to be more consistent.

I also did add a section for absenteeism stuff.

Chat reps - do we really need that position any more? I don't see any use for them. DG3 did quite nicely without any.

I like the stuff about a leader may dismiss a deputy - didn't even cross my mind. Good one! Also like the Pres. appointing leader if no deputy exists - missed that as well. :blush:

H.1.b doesn't make sense as written, or I'm just too tired. Could you explain? As it is, I would prefer that any position not filled in an election cycle be filled with an abbreviated election.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
Cyc,

It's true that the title of the DG2 section is appointed positions. In reality, it dealt more with deputies than anything else. I renamed it to be more consistent.

Section H is about appointed positions, it's just that the Section was so poorly written that it is confusing. H.1 is about Leaders, plain and simple. H.2 goes into Deputies.

Chat reps - do we really need that position any more? I don't see any use for them. DG3 did quite nicely without any.

Yes, I believe we should keep something about Chat Reps in the CoL in case some Department wants or needs to use them. But this point is a throw away for me, as I never used a Chat Rep in any of my Leadership positions. :D

H.1.b doesn't make sense as written, or I'm just too tired. Could you explain? As it is, I would prefer that any position not filled in an election cycle be filled with an abbreviated election.

-- Ravensfire

1. What the heck are you talking about here, Ravensfire. We had a long, drawn out discussion about appointments and then polled the citizens on it, who said they wanted appointments. Period! We will not rehash all of this again. Empty Offices will be filled by appointment.

2. Because the original Section H was so poorly written, it said that if an Office was not filled by election, then the Deputy would be promoted to Leader. :hmm: If there is no Leader, how did we get a Deputy? :rolleyes: The reason there is no Leader is because no one ran for the position. Thus my H.1.b

Originally posted by Cyc


Section H is about appointed positions, it's just that the Section was so poorly written that it is confusing. H.1 is about Leaders, plain and simple. H.2 goes into Deputies.
If the section is so poorly written that it's confusing, why not rewrite it? I don't see a problem with my proposal on that. It covers the same issues, but does so in a manner that is simpler and easier to understand.

1. What the heck are you talking about here, Ravensfire. We had a long, drawn out discussion about appointments and then polled the citizens on it, who said they wanted appointments. Period! We will not rehash all of this again. Empty Offices will be filled by appointment.
Cyc, I looked back at the poll on this issue. The question was "Should we allow appointments in DG4"

Link to poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=70925)

The discussion on this poll revolves around Deputies. I argue that the poll indicates ONLY that citizens want deputies to be appointed. Nothing there could indicate that citizens want an office not filled in an election to be filled via appointments. Sorry, you're trying to make a poll say something it doesn't. The poll says that we want deputies to be appointed. Period. Offices not filled in an election should be filled with an abbreviated election.

2. Because the original Section H was so poorly written, it said that if an Office was not filled by election, then the Deputy would be promoted to Leader. :hmm: If there is no Leader, how did we get a Deputy? :rolleyes: The reason there is no Leader is because no one ran for the position. Thus my H.1.b
This would be the sentance I'm struggling with. "...then there isn't a Deputy, or if there is ..." You just said that they can't be a deputy, but then said their might be. It's just not written well.

If the position isn't filled in an election, it's empty. There is no Deputy. There can't be. I understand what you are trying to say, this just is a bad way to say it. Be blunt on this issue.

-- Ravensfire

EDIT: Reformatted and included quotes

quoting Ravensfire:
Cyc, I looked back at the poll on this issue. The question was "Should we allow appointments in DG4"

Link to poll

The discussion on this poll revolves around Deputies. I argue that the poll indicates ONLY that citizens want deputies to be appointed. Nothing there could indicate that citizens want an office not filled in an election to be filled via appointments. Sorry, you're trying to make a poll say something it doesn't. The poll says that we want deputies to be appointed. Period. Offices not filled in an election should be filled with an abbreviated election.


Ravensfire, pass that pipe onto someone else. ok? you've had enough! Talk about making the poll say what you want....
The poll's title is "Should we allow appointments in DG4?". The poll's question is "Should we allow appointments in DG4?". The first post of the poll simply states "Should we allow appoinments in DG4?

Yes
No
Abstain"

Nowhere does it say Deputies. It says appointments. You are the one bending the poll to your needs, not me. I have been very lenient on my wording concerning this issue, but you appear to be high-jacking it to suit your campaign promise. It ain't goona work, senor Presidential Candidate.

Originally posted by Cyc
quoting Ravensfire:
Cyc, I looked back at the poll on this issue. The question was "Should we allow appointments in DG4"

Link to poll

The discussion on this poll revolves around Deputies. I argue that the poll indicates ONLY that citizens want deputies to be appointed. Nothing there could indicate that citizens want an office not filled in an election to be filled via appointments. Sorry, you're trying to make a poll say something it doesn't. The poll says that we want deputies to be appointed. Period. Offices not filled in an election should be filled with an abbreviated election.


Ravensfire, pass that pipe onto someone else. ok? you've had enough! Talk about making the poll say what you want....
The poll's title is "Should we allow appointments in DG4?". The poll's question is "Should we allow appointments in DG4?". The first post of the poll simply states "Should we allow appoinments in DG4?

Yes
No
Abstain"

Nowhere does it say Deputies. It says appointments. You are the one bending the poll to your needs, not me. I have been very lenient on my wording concerning this issue, but you appear to be high-jacking it to suit your campaign promise. It ain't goona work, senor Presidential Candidate.

Let me just take that pipe back from you then.

Read the discussion Cyc. Read the context of the poll - it revolves around deputies. Period. Go ahead - read through it. Read through the discussion that spawned it. Deputies. Period. Driver through, please. Next!

And I assure you that I will never be a Presidential candidate in this game. It is impossible for me to meet the requirements.

-- Ravensfire

Hey, Ravensfire, I'll take some fries with that shake! The poll does not say deputies. Can can twist it to what you want to say, but the people voted to allow appointments. There was no qualifier. Read 'em and weep.

Originally posted by Cyc
Hey, Ravensfire, I'll take some fries with that shake! The poll does not say deputies. Can can twist it to what you want to say, but the people voted to allow appointments. There was no qualifier. Read 'em and weep.

Ahh, so we ignore context then? Cool!

Let us then look at the poll exactly as writte, as that's how you want to do it.

The question is: Should we allow appointments in DG4.

We said yes.

Thus, we allow appointments in DG4.

Under your standard of interpretation, we allow appointments in DG4. The people have spoken! Appointments are not required! Aleluhah!

Oh wait, if you get the context of the poll, you learn that yes, it was to require appointments for deputies. But the context doesn't matter, now does it?

But, if we ignore the context again, then there is nothing wrong with my proposal, now is there? The poll only says that we allow appointments, nothing about requiring them.

Here's your order!

-- Ravensfire

The fries are cold, ravensfire. Figures. Why would we vote to allow appointments and then write laws ignoring them? gimme some ketchup too!

As Section H deals with appointed positions, I believe separate Sections should be drawn up to regulate the areas of absenteeism, the removal process of Leaders, positions one is eligible for etc., etc. In fact, Section H should only be dealing with appointed positions. We don't need to cloud the issue by bringing in other matters. Keep them separate. Therefore I'd like to propose this wording as opposed to Ravenfire's.

H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled via appointment by the President.
a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the appointment. Should a majority of citizens voting in the poll reject the candidate, another citizen must be chosen.

2. Deputies
a. Each elected office in the Executive and Legislative branch shall have a Deputy. This Deputy is appointed by the office holder.
1. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the appointment. Should a majority of citizens voting in the poll reject the candidate, another citizen must be chosen.
b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.
c. A citizen may only be appointed to one Deputy position.

3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by appointing the deputy for
that position as Leader.
a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a triumvirate vote between the President and the other two Justices determining and approving the replacement.
1. 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.

H.1. needs a refusal poll subsection.

Change 3.a to include the other two members of the Judiciary.

-- Ravensfire

Sorry for the spamming - missed a few thoughts.

Need to add deputy restrictions:
-- 1 deputy position per person
-- No elected official may be a deputy

-- Ravensfire

Done. Your 3.a request is already covered, though. :)

Originally posted by Cyc
Done. Your 3.a request is already covered, though. :)

Sorry - I was unclear. The appointment process should be made by the President AND the other two members of the Judiciary acting in concert. I want to make sure that anyone appointed to the bench is going to be capable of the job. While a bad official can make things harder within the Civ III game, a bad judicial member can make things harder within the Demo Game!

I just don't trust the refusal poll to handle something like that.

-- Ravensfire

So what you want is the Triumphant (or whatever the term is) vote between the Prez and the other two Justices?

Triumvirate! (yes, I did look it up!)

Yes, for the sole purpose of choosing the appointee.

-- Ravensfire

Done. Comments?

Slightly modified version, simplifying verbage of refusal poll (see poll section of CoS).

H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall
be filled via appointment by the President.
a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the
appointment.

2. Deputies
a. Each elected office in the Executive and Legislative branch
shall have a Deputy. This Deputy is appointed by the office
holder.
1. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the
appointment.
b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.
c. A citizen may only be appointed to one Deputy position.

3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by
appointing the deputy for that position as Leader.
a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a
triumvirate vote between the President and the other two
Justices determining and approving the replacement.
1. Any citizen may request a refusal poll within 24 hours of
the appointement.


Poll will go up in 2004.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.



I am Strongly against this section of the rules. I beleve we should take out this section of the proposal. There is no harm in having the Leader being both a Leader and a Deputy.

In the past there were no troubles with leaders being both an elected offical and a deputy.

There is no harm but it limits participation so it is important to keep that clause in.

How does it limits participation? Personaly I dont see that it limits participation.

Well since Person A is already part of the government, making him a deputy of another office means that Person B misses out.
Person A holds 2 positions but Person B holds none. Doing it the RF way means that both Person A and Person B hold one position each. Therefore greater participation.

Personaly I dont see a problem having a Leader also being a deputy, so long as the limit that a persion can only hold 1 deputy possition. Regardless if he/she is a citizen or an elected offical.

CG,

I have four issues with allowing those already in leadership positions to be the deputy of another.

First, as Peri as eloquently stated, it limits participation. The continual influx of new players is key to both the survival of the Demogame, and its ability to hold the interest of existing players.

Second, we have altered the duties of the deputy to explictly allow the posting of instructions under some circumstances. With this new duty, it is entirely possible that one person may be posting instructions for two different departments. The idea of the multiple departments is to both seperate duties and allow multiple viewpoints on issues. Both would defeated by the above situation.

Third, the position of deputy is now more than a meaningless post, there just to make a person feel better, and take over in the unlikely event we lose a leader. The deputy must monitor everything going on in the department, and be able to post competent and thoughtful instructions should the leader fail to do so. That takes time - we need deputies capable of focusing on the goal at hand.

Finally, the second main duty for a deputy is to assume the office should it become vacant. If the deputy is also a leader, they would assume the office, and then immediately have to resign from an office. Ludicrous! Madness! We have a deputy, that can't do one of the two main duties of a deputy? That's foolish, CG.

Barring more support for allowing a leader to be the deputy of another position, I will poll this using the verbage in post 33 tonight.

-- Ravensfire

Having a Leader who is also a deputy can limit participation. For example, as a newbie, if I eventually try for an elected office, I am very unlikely to get in on a first attempt (even if I have been posting my views, active as a mayor etc so that people know me). My first step towards an elected position is most likely to be as a deputy. However if you allow leaders to be deputies, then they are likely to be better qualified and better known than I am, so are more likely to get the deputy position. I am therefore only likely to get even a deputy position if none of the leaders want it, hence fewer opportunities for me to become involved.

If no one else is interested in being deputy however, I would prefer to see that position filled by someone who is also a leader (perhaps on a temporary basis?) rather than the deputy position remain empty. Not being able to be both keeps it simple though.

PS: This is NOT saying that I want a deputy position now, but there were people in the last election who were trying to get elected for the first time.

Poll has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73790).

-- Ravensfire