As several different sections of the CoS can touch on this, I am hoping to pull any discussion about what constitutes a legal instruction into one thread - here. Try to keep the other threads focused as much as possible on the topic at hand.

Have at it!

-- Ravensfire

I believe the issue of Legal Instructions should have its own Section in the CoL, not the CoS.

CoL, CoS - regardless of the specific book, we need to discuss this. The specific book will just be part of that discussion.

My take:

Short version: A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered to do so, within the limitations of the office the citizen is representing.

If you note, there is nothing about the "Will of the People" there, no about polls. Very intentional.

An instruction is a statement to the DP that they are to do X. The DP is a busy person, being pulled in many ways. The DP should be responsible for making sure a given instruction is within the boundaries of the office that posted it, and that is all.

They should be able to assume that the instruction represents the will of the people. As such, if they follow an instruction that is later determined to be against the will of the people, the DP is not responsible, but the person that posted the instruction.

Let's declare that anything in the instruction thread is presumed to be a legal instruction (assuming an office has not overstepped their boundaries). If we have a problem with an instruction, we take it up with the person that posted it.


Of course, that raise the question of how does a leader determine the will of the people, but that's an easier discussion.

-- Ravensfire

Nothing to add Ravensfire. I agree with leaving out "The Will of the People" and "poll".

That stops the need for the President to check prior to each turnchat if we voted "yes" or "no" on item XX, and puts it back where it belongs; in the hands of the responsible office.

If a poll-result hasn't been posted in the instruction-thread, it is not an instruction. The responsible leader is to blame. This has a nice side-effect. The Vice-president (a very minor role) gets the duty to verify whether each poll-result and other agreement is posted in the instruction-thread and if not address/remind the responsible leader to make it so.

What do you think ?

It is a very sound definition. It covers a lot of bases in regards of accountability and expidites the game process.

What is this? Give the VP some responsibility?

Call 911 - I'm gonna pass out!

I like the idea Rik. I would state as the VP *should* verify all posted instructions. It won't always be possible (time constraints, unable to access CFC from period between instruction posted and turn chat) to verify them, but the VP should attempt to do so.

-- Ravensfire

I like your "short version" Ravensfire.

Great! :) Let's make this CoL - Section K. This subject of what is a Legal Instruction and what is not has been the cause of many disagreements. We need to give this the weight of a Law, not a Standard.

Proposal:

CoL:

K. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to
the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered to
do so, within the limitations of the office the citizen
is representing.
1. Time permitting, the Vice-President should verify
that posted instructions are within the authority
of the poster and reflect the expressed Will of
the People.

The definition of what is a legal instruction is now anything posted in the TCIT at least one hour prior to the start of the session. The VP CAN verify the posted instructions, but is not bound to do so. If the VP does not verify an instruction that turns out to be illegal, the VP will not be under any consequences, only the leader posting the instruction.

-- Ravensfire

Just to clarify, this legislation would make an instruction posted within an hour of the t/c one that is not legal? And does this mean the DP is not required to follow said instruction?

Originally posted by Cyc
Just to clarify, this legislation would make an instruction posted within an hour of the t/c one that is not legal? And does this mean the DP is not required to follow said instruction?

That is correct. There is no excuse for our officials to wait until the last second to post an instruction. The DP needs some time to gather all instructions and organize the tasks for that term.

If an official can't be bothered to give the DP some time to prepare, they shouldn't be an official.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


That is correct. There is no excuse for our officials to wait until the last second to post an instruction. The DP needs some time to gather all instructions and organize the tasks for that term.

If an official can't be bothered to give the DP some time to prepare, they shouldn't be an official.

-- Ravensfire

OK, but then we need a blurb in there that says "all" instructions not posted prior to 1 hour before the chat will be rejected out of hand. This will keep the DP from "picking and choosing" which instructions (posted after the "1 hour prior mark) he or she will put into play. To make the playing field level for all, it has to be all or none, as far as which instructions will be used.

Originally posted by Cyc


OK, but then we need a blurb in there that says "all" instructions not posted prior to 1 hour before the chat will be rejected out of hand. This will keep the DP from "picking and choosing" which instructions (posted after the "1 hour prior mark) he or she will put into play. To make the playing field level for all, it has to be all or none, as far as which instructions will be used.

I don't think we need to go quite that far.

The DP is bound to follow legal instructions. In the absense of legal instructions, the DP is the sole determiner of the action to take. Now, the DP can take advice from others. I would consider that an instruction posted after the cut-off time is considered advice. The DP is under no obligation to follow such instructions, but there shouldn't be anything that prevents them from doing so.

So, it is fair - all instructions posted after the cut-off time are advice only. If a citizen doesn't like that the DP carried out only part of the instructions, they should take that up with the official who failed to post the instructions correctly.

For the most part, I put the cut-off time in there to prevent a leader from dropping in last minute instructions, then complaining about the DP not following the instructions.

-- Ravensfire

Edit to above as my browser isn't cooperating.

A better way to state my point would be this:

It is fair - no instructions posted after the cut-off time are considered Legal Instructions.

-- Ravensfire

So if a Deputy posts instructions that have been discussed and approved by the citizens, after the 1 hour cut-off time (because that's his legal posting time if the Leader doesn't post) then the deputies instructions aren't legal?

We need to clarify this little stuff.

Originally posted by Cyc
So if a Deputy posts instructions that have been discussed and approved by the citizens, after the 1 hour cut-off time (because that's his legal posting time if the Leader doesn't post) then the deputies instructions aren't legal?

We need to clarify this little stuff.

I thought the deputy was allowed to post after 24 hours.

Hmmm, that's in the proposal stuck in the appointed position thread.

Assuming the deputy can post legal instructions in a 24 hour window, yes, they still have to be within the 1 hour cut-off.

Cyc, this may inconvience a particular department, but it's going to make life a lot easier for the DP. I'm tired of leaders not doing anything until the last second, then posting in instructions 5 minutes before the chat. That's complete bunk. As a citizen, I am demanding accountabilty from the leaders. Start your discussions earlier and look into the future. As a citizen, I'd like the chance to review posted instructions for errors. If they post 5 minutes before the chat, I don't have that opportunity.

-- Ravensfire

Case in point. In the CoS - Turn Chat Instruction Thread proposal you posted the following ~

B. Chat Turn Instruction Thread
1. All instructions to be played out in the chat turn must be entered in the chat turn
instruction thread.
A. Any instructions that are not posted to the chat turn instruction thread
before the start of the chat turn are not considered official.


So now we have the Deputies instructions being official but not binding. This means the Deputies instructions are only advice. Correct?

Oops, forgot one comment.

It is pretty clear, personal opinion of course!

Read it literally - legal instructions are those posted in the TCIT, by a citizen empowered to do so, at least one hour prior to the start of the chat.

Elected official, deputy - doesn't matter. Is that citizen empowered to post the instruction, did they post it in the TCIT and did they post it at least one hour before the chat starts.

That's it - anything else is not a legal instruction.

-- Ravensfire

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ravensfire
[B]Proposal:

CoL:

K. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to
the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered to
do so, within the limitations of the office the citizen
is representing.
1. Time permitting, the Vice-President should verify
that posted instructions are within the authority
of the poster and reflect the expressed Will of
the People.


I am not sure I agree with section 1. It should be fairly simple to know if a poster has the authority to post, so stating this in code is a bit redundent. Also, what if the VP thought the Will of the People was not followed? This can get complicated fast. Lets let individuals decide if they want to bring up with the courts issues concerning the Will of the People.

Section one begs for trouble since it calls on the VP to make a judgement call on the *expressed Will of the People*. The leaders should be doing that and if they aren't won't we have a mechanism whereby the judiciary would make this determination upon recieving a complaint?

I also think K.1 is begging for trouble. It would be far better to just assume everything in the TCIT is legal, and if someone goofed then they're responsible, not the DP. Besides, the determination of who should post (as K.1 is currently written this seems to be the focus) is trivial compared to deciding which department an instruction should apply to. That should be a question for the judiciary as a JR (not a citizen complaint unless it is obvious the erroneous post was intended to overstep a departments bounds).

One thing troubles me, and that is the apparent desire to disallow instructions in the form of "do what this poll says". As one example, I'm usually very well prepared way in advance, but can't always check the poll and post its result just over 1 hour in advance of the turn chat time. I want to give the people their say, and there is rarely time to do a discussion and a poll of reasonable length which ends more than 8-12 hours before the TC so the responsible leader can check the poll and post an instruction during a time he/she is available.

K.1 could be trouble, especially since we'd be giving this power to a single person. Perhaps if the judiciary was involved in some fashion, in place of the VP, we could make the clause work.

K. A legal instruction is any instruction, posted in the
turn chat instruction thread at least one hour prior to
the start of the turn chat, by a citizen empowered to
do so, within the limitations of the office the citizen
is representing.


Back to the simple version!

Dave, there is nothing (and hopefully never will be anything) that would prevent a "see this poll" type of instruction.

However, using that type of instruction is always subject to problems if the poll doesn't close prior to the chat - as the DP can look at that during prep, take action, and not worry about it. People then come it to vote, change the result, the DP gets yelled at for not following the instructions!

My personal opinion is that so long as the poll closes 1 hour before the chat, shouldn't be a problem. Anything other than that - there is a risk that the result could change after the DP acts upon it.

-- Ravensfire

Poll has been posted Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73815)

-- Ravensfire