DG2 Section J of the CoS:

J. Absenteeism
1. An official is considered absent from the chat turn when they are not present at
the chat turn.
2. An official is considered absent from the forum when they have not responded
to a required inquiry (Cabinet Vote, request in the official’s department thread)
in 36 hours.
A. An official who is absent from the chat turn is not considered absent
from the Forum until the Forum absenteeism requirement has been met.
3. An official who has not responded to a required
inquiry in 7 days may be removed from their office
at the President's discretion.
4. An official who is not present on the Forum for 14
consecutive days for any reason may be removed from
office at the President's discretion.

A proposal:

J. Absenteeism
1. 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.

2. Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post instructions for
2 consecutive game play sessions, any citizen may request that the office
be declared abandoned by creating 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 by posting in the request thread
within 48 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office
is considered vacant.

3. Should a Judicial leader fail to respond to an official post or message
within 36 hours, any member of the Judiciary may request that the office
be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. A member of the Judiciary 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 by posting in the request thread
within 48 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office
is considered vacant.


4. 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.



Short, based on the primary function of the leaders and pretty clear.

It also covers expected absences, and dealing with leaders not posting instructions.

-- Ravensfire

I would vote for sections 1 and 4a and 4b. I don't like 4c because judicial members should not be able to appoint anyone especially someone already holding office. I do not like sections 2 and 3 because of the 36 hour rule. Some of us do not have internet access over the weekend which means it may well be 48 to 72 hours between our posts. Should we be ruled out of office holding?

In 4.b, replace the first "such" with "so".

@ donsig, the number 36 is not mentioned in #2 and in #3, 36 hours is appropriate because of tight Turn Chat scheduling. As the weekend is only 48 hours long, I'm sure that an official could delagate his authority over to his Deputy to cover those hours.

Also in 4.c we could add "until their return" at the end.

Originally posted by donsig
I would vote for sections 1 and 4a and 4b. I don't like 4c because judicial members should not be able to appoint anyone especially someone already holding office. I do not like sections 2 and 3 because of the 36 hour rule. Some of us do not have internet access over the weekend which means it may well be 48 to 72 hours between our posts. Should we be ruled out of office holding?

Good point about the 36 hour rule donsig - my bad. Would 4 days work? I don't want it to be too long of a period - any time there is a an "official" post or message, the Judiciary is needed. I hate delaying stuff like that. However, we should not punish a citizen simply because their internet connection is limited.

Same with 2.c and 3.c - extend the time period to 96 hours. There should be a deputy - they can handle the duties.

On 4.c. - how should a known, extended absence in the Judiciary be handled? I would prefer to always have 3 in the Judiciary as that is the check against the CJ - the AJ's can overrule by acting together. Cyc's point is correct - until they return should have been there. It is implied, and was intended to read as such, it should be made explicit.

'Perciate the input!
-- Ravensfire

J. Absenteeism
1. 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.


Once the deputy posts, any subsequent posts by the leader would be void - this is covered somewhere else, right?


3. Should a Judicial leader fail to respond to an official post or message
within 36 hours, any member of the Judiciary may request that the office
be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. A member of the Judiciary 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 by posting in the request thread
within 48 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office
is considered vacant.

In section b, what if the absent person is the Chief Justice? Should this instead specify that sections a and b be performed by the Judiciary member that initiated section 3?

I beleve that the length of absence from the forums should remain the same before giving the leader the boot.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I beleve that the length of absence from the forums should remain the same before giving the leader the boot.

CG,

The DG 2 time frame is up to 14 days before the official is considered absent - that's almost half the term! We should not wait that long.

The job of our elected officials is, ultimately, to provide instructions to the DP. Key the absenteeism to that (see my proposal) and move on.

-- Ravensfire

I gather that 1-3 are for unscheduled absences, whereas 4 is for scheduled absences. I could however also read it so that 2 and 3 apply even if 4 also applies, so someone posts that they’ll be away and arranges for their deputy to take over, only to return when they said they would and find out that in their absence they have been removed from office! I don’t believe that is the intention, or is it? Is this also to limit the length of time someone can be absent, even if they have already posted to that effect?

I don't quite understand why we need to have a removal from office for unplanned absences at all. Why not just let the deputy take over de-facto, while waiting for that person to return? As for Judicial offices, we can use a method involving the President or other Judiciary members to determine a de-facto justice.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I don't quite understand why we need to have a removal from office for unplanned absences at all. Why not just let the deputy take over de-facto, while waiting for that person to return?

I'm on the fence on this aspect of absenteeism. On one hand, since unplanned absences are seldom under the control of the missing person, it seems wrong to penalize someone, even indirectly, for such an event. On the other hand, if the leader and deputy happen to both be absent at the same time, without a removal mechanism we're stuck with no representation at all for the duration of the absence.

Originally posted by zorven

Once the deputy posts, any subsequent posts by the leader would be void - this is covered somewhere else, right?

This is the sticky point of deputies posting instructions at all. One standard would be the first post by a department defines who is responsible for the department that turn. Another standard would be the last post for a department supercedes preceeding posts. It gets really complicated if the leader and deputy have a significant disagreement -- using the "last post wins" method would result in a back and forth of biblical proportions.

Given the civil war that could result from a 'last post wins' rule, it's down to the following choices:

The first post by a department defines who is responsible for that department for this turn chat.
A leader post supercedes the deputy post.

I'm leaning toward choice 1 -- if the deputy has to step in, they're "it" for that TC, and the clock starts on the leader for being considered absent under section 2.

Proposal v1.1

J. Absenteeism
1. 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.
a. The office holder may not post instructions should they return once the
deputy has posted instructions.

2. Should an Executive or Legislative leader fail to post instructions for
2 consecutive game play sessions, without posting in the official absence
thread, any citizen may request that the office
be declared abandoned by creating 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 by posting in the request thread
within 96 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office
is considered vacant.

3. Should a Judicial leader fail to respond to an official post or message
within 96 hours, without posting in the official absence thread, any
member of the Judiciary may request that the office
be declared abandoned by creating a thread in the Citizen forum.
a. A member of the Judiciary shall then send a PM to the office holder,
notifying them of the request.
b. The Justice that made the request shall then post in the request thread
that the PM has been sent.
c. Should the office holder fail to reply by posting in the request thread
within 96 hours of the PM, the office holder is removed and the office
is considered vacant.


4. 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 so 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, not already an elected official
or deputy to an elected official, to serve in their office until they
return.


Changelog:
V 1.1
* Added 1.a
* Changed time to 96 hours in 2.c, 3, 3.c
* Replaced "such" with "so" in 4.b
* Added clause to 4.c to restrict to non-official/deputy citizens
* Changed 3.b to use member initiatin request
* Added "without posting in official absence thread" to 2 and 3

-- Ravensfire

I can see that this has been discussed, but J.1 and J.1.a effectively mean that the office holder has until 24 hours before the turn chat to post instructions rather than 1.
The deputy obviously has to have the time in which to post, but there must be some mechanism that allows the office holder to supersede a perhaps over eager deputy's post in this last 24 hours (well 23 actually) that will not confuse the DP or result in a tug of war between the office holder and deputy.
Perhaps if the deputy edits their post to remove the instructions the office holder may then post their own set of instructions. If the deputy does not remove their instructions then they stand and the office holder may not post. Adding "unless the deputy first removes those instructions" to J.1.a would cover this.

I like section 1 as is. Once the deputy has posted no instructions should be allowed from the leader. This will make it much easier for the DP to process all the instructions for the chat. This way there is no debate as to whose orders supercede the others or which are the legal orders. Note that the leader could still discuss the issues with the deputy and have the deputy update the instructions.

Poll has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73818).

-- Ravensfire