A proposal to add Article E. to the existing Constitution:

Article E. Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch will be formed of one House of the People and an Advisory
Council.

1.The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the
citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and
Amendments to the Constitution.
a.The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments
and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.
2.The Advisory Council will be formed of the Provincial Governors.
They will advise the citizens of the state of their individual
provinces, any concerns there may be for said provinces,
and enumerate any goals they envision for their provinces.
a.Each Governor shall determine any policies and procedures
needed to carry out their duties.
b.Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province through the
setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles,
population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers.

Discussion on this Proposed Article is located here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=96187)

The proposed language of Article E. does not replace any other language in the Constitution, as there is no current Article E. of the Constitution.

There are three (3) options in placing your vote:
1. Yes (to ratify)
2. No (to defeat)
3. Abstain

This is a public poll and will run for 96 hours, after which time the proposed Article will be considered to be Ratified or Defeated.

Yes, by all means. Let's get this done. Great poll, Comnenus. :thumbsup:

So, with the new article I in place (it will be in less than 24 hours unless 20 some people go and vote no), 38 people must vote, and the number of yes votes must outnumber the no votes by at least 2 to 1 in order to pass, If i have read it correctly.

and dont forget to go vote on article O after you vote here.

So, with the new article I in place (it will be in less than 24 hours unless 20 some people go and vote no), 38 people must vote, and the number of yes votes must outnumber the no votes by at least 2 to 1 in order to pass, If i have read it correctly.

If my math is correct, 38 votes with 25 yes votes are needed for passage. Keep in mind that abstains count for the vote total, but not in the yes/no equation.

so, we dont know how many yes votes are needed yet, because it depends on how many people abstain. From what I read, if 35 people abstain, 2 vote yes and 1 votes no the amendment passes. Am I correct in this interpretation? (I state, 67% of census must vote, and there must be a 67% yes vote when compared onlytothe no's.)

so, we dont know how many yes votes are needed yet, because it depends on how many people abstain. From what I read, if 35 people abstain, 2 vote yes and 1 votes no the amendment passes. Am I correct in this interpretation? (I state, 67% of census must vote, and there must be a 67% yes vote when compared onlytothe no's.)

Theoretically, yes. My numbers were based on all votes being cast yes/no.

I encourage all citizens to vote yes in this poll.

I also encorage everyone to vote and vote yes I'm tired of voting in these polls

No.

Poorly written. Verbose.

Laws should be brief, clear and to the point. This law fails all three.

-- Ravensfire

I like this. I voted yes.

I was just poking around the constitution and I noticed Article C mentions a legislative branch in our government. However, this legislative brach is not mentioned anywhere else in the constitution. I was going to point this out somewhere, when I noticed this poll. It was exactly what I was looking for.

8 more votes to go at this point, people. Lets keep this going! Vote YES.

Let me see if I have this straight:


Article D, in part:

The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation, as well
as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.




Proposed Article E, in part:

2.The Advisory Council will be formed of the Provincial Governors.
They will advise the citizens of the state of their individual
provinces, any concerns there may be for said provinces,
and enumerate any goals they envision for their provinces.
a.Each Governor shall determine any policies and procedures
needed to carry out their duties.
b.Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province through the
setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles,
population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers.


So, it is my understanding that, under this proposed ammendment, the Domestic Advisor:

A: would have actual power to change the Pay Sliders and call Mobilizations ONLY,

B: can advise on build queues and all items under E:2b, but...

C: still retains Veto Power over all matters involving a change of funds or funds per turn.

That is: If a Governor wanted to change a build queue from a Spearman to an Archer, that could be done without any advise/concent from the DA, Under This Ammendment. Likewise, a Governor can swap between a Library and a Marketplace without A&C from the DA UTA. However, if one were to change from a Spearman to a Library, the DA would have Veto Power since would send 1 GPT from Military to Maintnance. To say nothing of Spearman to Collesium.


I'd like to have my ducks in a row before voting.

Oh God! How many ratificating polls will be??? I don't have enough willpower to even read it (not even saying about translate and understand it) I'm abstain

Why are we resubmitting these things? Is it because we tried to pass them once and failed? Is our country's motto If at first you don't succeed, poll, poll again?

Or am I being too hasty? Is there something different between this amendment and the last proposal?

Why are we resubmitting these things? Is it because we tried to pass them once and failed? Is our country's motto If at first you don't succeed, poll, poll again?

Or am I being too hasty? Is there something different between this amendment and the last proposal?
They were resubmitted with the same wording because they received such overwhelming public support, but failed by one vote to reach quorum under Article I before it was amended.

They were resubmitted with the same wording because they received such overwhelming public support, but failed by one vote to reach quorum under Article I before it was amended.

If the vote didn't muster a proper quorum then how can it be said it rec'd *overwhelming support*? The quorum is there for a reason, let's live with it and move on. A vote of five to nothing can be considered overwhelming support in one sense but underwhelming in another. Why don't we revamp the wording to make a better proposal before resubmitting amendments?

I would suggest we put the governors into the executive branch where they belong and dispense of the Advisory Council. Perhaps then the thing would pass quorum.

EDIT: Is it possible to post the required votes needed to pass an amendment in the opening post of the poll?

three more votes in either direction and it passes.

Again, before I vote, I would like to have my questions regarding the Role of the Domestic Minister in Post 13 of this thread answered. This "clearing of the air" could mean the difference between having Governors and not having them!

three more votes in either direction and it passes.

Excellent! Therefore, if you do not support this Article, DO NOT VOTE. Should it happen to suddenly reach quorum just before time expires, vote No or Abstain. Otherwise, utilize the null vote strategy.

-- Ravensfire

Excellent! Therefore, if you do not support this Article, DO NOT VOTE. Should it happen to suddenly reach quorum just before time expires, vote No or Abstain. Otherwise, utilize the null vote strategy.

-- Ravensfire

Yeah, that's really smart, try to kill the game because it isn't going your way even though so far 86% of the people agree. This is a democracy, and you're on the losing side, so deal with it.

Mr. President, My Fellow Citizens, time is short, and so are votes.

I have expressed a few assumptions as to what would happen to the position of the Domestic Minister should this Article pass. These assumptions are listed on Post #13.

It is not as though I wish to make a judgement on what would happen; I just wish to know what would happen, either confirming my assumptions, or denying them with proper corrections.

No Citizen has stepped forward to do this! It has been over 30 hours since I made my assumptions known and they have neither been confirmed or denied. :mad:

I can not, in good concience, vote on this Article without knowing the ramifications to the established departments, the balance of powers, habeas corpus delecti, et cetera. (Okay, a little carried away, but you get my point

Therefore, I ask for opinions on my assumptions. If the Justices feel it necessary to hold a full Judicial Review on the matter, they may do so if time allows! The important thing is that I know what we're doing to the DA position by this article.

If you give me proper answers addressing my assumptions, I will endeavor to make my opinion known, or at the very least Abstain should I not form one quickly. With 36 votes already, hopefully we could get another plus mine to reach quota. Like Article I, if it becomes a burden, we can ammend later, but I must understand what'll happen before I can make my opinion known.

But If these questions are not answered soon, (as in 1 hour before the Poll closes,) then I must painfully maintain a null status, putting this Article in Jeproady.

I do not want to play the villian here, holding up a key branch of our Demogame. Please answer my assumptions...

Let me see if I have this straight:

So, it is my understanding that, under this proposed ammendment, the Domestic Advisor:

A: would have actual power to change the Pay Sliders and call Mobilizations ONLY,

B: can advise on build queues and all items under E:2b, but...

C: still retains Veto Power over all matters involving a change of funds or funds per turn.

That is: If a Governor wanted to change a build queue from a Spearman to an Archer, that could be done without any advise/concent from the DA, Under This Ammendment. Likewise, a Governor can swap between a Library and a Marketplace without A&C from the DA UTA. However, if one were to change from a Spearman to a Library, the DA would have Veto Power since would send 1 GPT from Military to Maintnance. To say nothing of Spearman to Collesium.

I'd like to have my ducks in a row before voting.


Here's a duck for you SD3. In response to your questions:

A: would have actual power to change the Pay Sliders and call Mobilizations ONLY,

The slider settings can be seen to fall under the phrase "as well
as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.", but still this decision, if made by the Domestic Advisor, should be based on the Will of the People. Discussion threads and polls can be used to determine this. Mobilization may indeed be deemed as part of domestic initiatives, as it would allow domestic responsibility of production schedules to be released to the Military Department. But I can't see a precise definition of Mobilization in Article D. Therefore, I'm not real sure what you're asking here, or implying.

B: can advise on build queues and all items under E:2b, but...

ANYONE can advise on build queues and all items under E.2.b. Other than advice, the DA has no authorization to influence the posting of Instructions by the Governors. Advice is welcomed by the Governors, who base their decisions on build queues, etc. on the WOTP.

C: still retains Veto Power over all matters involving a change of funds or funds per turn.

The DA, according to Article D.1, does hold the purse strings of the nation. The Budget thread is the venue for approval of requests for troop upgrades and city improvement rushes. This thread is handled by the DA, so this Veto Power you speak of could exist here.

That is: If a Governor wanted to change a build queue from a Spearman to an Archer, that could be done without any advise/concent from the DA, Under This Ammendment. Likewise, a Governor can swap between a Library and a Marketplace without A&C from the DA UTA. However, if one were to change from a Spearman to a Library, the DA would have Veto Power since would send 1 GPT from Military to Maintnance. To say nothing of Spearman to Collesium.

As of this time, as well as, after the passing of this Amendment, the Governor is allowed to make a change in the production of any city within his Province, regardless of the opinion of the DA beyond consideration of their voice being one of the citizen's. The Power of the Purse Strings does not entail the cancellation of proposed build queues because of cost to the nation of said unit or improvement. The allocation of 1 - 4 gold (or beyond) from one category to another is not criteria for a decision such as this. You seem to have an exaggerated sense of the Domestic Advisor's role in the Game. Although the Books that contain our rules are not yet complete, standard definitions and customary roles set by precedence are used to fill in the gaps. Because of Article N, acts or action that fall within the spirit of the law are permitted, but things such as calling for Mobilization would require heavy citizen involvement. The main name of the game is the WOTP.

Excellent! Therefore, if you do not support this Article, DO NOT VOTE. Should it happen to suddenly reach quorum just before time expires, vote No or Abstain. Otherwise, utilize the null vote strategy.

-- Ravensfire

Ah, much better, Ravensfire. I had to remind you about your null vote strategy last time. ;)

Funny, your opposition to the wording of Article I(which deals with passage of Constitutional law) has not yet provided us with a proposed amendment on how to make the system better. It seems you would rather use the Polls Forum to be a cog in the wheel than work proactively to improve the state of Japanatica's ruleset. Sad, really. :(

we need one vote in 11 hours

Ah, much better, Ravensfire. I had to remind you about your null vote strategy last time. ;)

Funny, your opposition to the wording of Article I(which deals with passage of Constitutional law) has not yet provided us with a proposed amendment on how to make the system better. It seems you would rather use the Polls Forum to be a cog in the wheel than work proactively to improve the state of Japanatica's ruleset. Sad, really. :(

DZ, my suggestion to correct Article I has already been made - refer to the poll thread on that Article. I still see the perfectionist tendancies, the hostility and the refusual to keep things simple that drove me away from the DG. I also see this game becoming a fiefdom of a few certain people, determined to shove their concepts down the throats of all (nobody involved in this discussion, btw). The dictates from above drained a great deal of my excitement, energy and desire to participate in a more active manner. I still observe discussions, vote on polls and comment on a few things that I find particularly foolish.

To state that any citizen would "use the polls forum to be a cog in the wheel" by stating my preference and describing a viable voting strategy is distressing. Nothing like the tyranny of the majority to silence the voice of dissent, eh DZ?

For the people complaining about the null vote strategy - too bad. The current law introduced it as a viable strategy for those of us opposed to a proposed amendment. In fact, I pointed that out in the poll discussion. To berate someone for using a viable, legal and quite logical strategy in opposition to something they don't like is foolish.

Fear not though. Your dislike of me, your displeasure of my tactics is irrelevant. I will still be here, taking shots from afar as so many have done to me in the past.

-- Ravensfire

All Hail his Honor, Cyc! His timely response (or at least his opinion ;) ) has satisfied me.

*Casts Quarum Vote*

Anyway:

A: Mobilization being the "Military-boost" option on the Domestic Screeny. Actually, Mobilization is an irreversable action, so it would require WotP.

B: I was figuring that the DA would retain the right to publish a general recommendation, which the Governors could either accept or ignore. In other words, a suggestion with a stamp.

C: Yeah, I guess I did overrate the position. I am glad that the DA would not be able to put a hold on TCs if we exceed positive GPT or Allowed Units. So this makes Domestic mostly "Secretary of the Treasury" in terms of the American Cabinent.

YAy thank you honerable Sir donald III we finally have an actual constitution
:goodjob:

my suggestion to correct Article I has already been made - refer to the poll thread on that Article.

Any citizen may start the amendment process. If you feel so strongly that the rules for passing amendments need to be changed, please feel free to make your suggestion formal by proposing it as an amendment.

By the way, let's look at this ratification poll using the criteria for passage that you suggested, which were 50% quorum and 66% approval. This poll is at over 67% quorum and 86% approval, which means that it would pass under your criteria as well. :D

We really need a system that works both ways: more than 80% approval of more than 25% of census, 67% approval of 50% of census, or a simple majority of a high quota (maybe 60% of census). Is there a formula to be had here, like %approving+%quorum>100%? Maybe I'll follow my own advice and start that as an amendment discussion. :)

In the end, people just answer yes in order to shut up the legal babble

Yeah, that's really smart, try to kill the game because it isn't going your way even though so far 86% of the people agree. This is a democracy, and you're on the losing side, so deal with it.

Why thank you, DaveShack. You're right. I shouldn't speak my mind. I shoul kow-tow to the tyranny of the majority. I shouldn't advocate strategies to defeat proposal I don't like.

You know, anytime I see someone vote on the losing side of a poll, I'm going to remind them that you don't like that. That this is a democracy, and your vote only counts if you vote with the currently winning side.

Way to grasp the concepts of democracy and free speech DaveShack. Well done!

-- Ravensfire

They should have written a decent law prior to the game, and not harass innocent civplayers with this verbal cacophony, cyberchat ego clashes, old DG memories, defunct laws, vengeful debaters and in general a waste of energy and time. I want this legal charade and debacle to end as soon as possible, so we can focus on the game as such, with the politics and strategies pertaining to the Civ game, not your personal stories.

True, Provolution.

Yeehaw!!!!! The measure passed!!!!! Way to go, people!!!!

To state that any citizen would "use the polls forum to be a cog in the wheel" by stating my preference and describing a viable voting strategy is distressing. Nothing like the tyranny of the majority to silence the voice of dissent, eh DZ?

To me old compatriot, ravensfire. Although sometimes you can be a PITA, this game could grow to become boring without you and people like you. Please continue your practice of voicing your opinion.

Why thank you, DaveShack. You're right. I shouldn't speak my mind. I shoul kow-tow to the tyranny of the majority. I shouldn't advocate strategies to defeat proposal I don't like.

You know, anytime I see someone vote on the losing side of a poll, I'm going to remind them that you don't like that. That this is a democracy, and your vote only counts if you vote with the currently winning side.

Way to grasp the concepts of democracy and free speech DaveShack. Well done!

-- Ravensfire

Speaking against it and voting against it are the right thing to do. Advocating not voting to force it to fail in the face of overwhelming support is not.

Speaking against it and voting against it are the right thing to do. Advocating not voting to force it to fail in the face of overwhelming support is not.

The current law places greater weight on the opposition NOT voting, rather than voting against a law. That problem was highlighted in the poll discussion on that law, and it was still passed. I have, and will continue to advocate using that provision as an opposition strategy.

Given that the same law ignores the voice of abstain except for determining quorum, I see no problems with my strategy.

Rail against my strategy all you want, DaveShack. You supported the very law that makes such a strategy viable. You are responsible for the plan you so dislike.

-- Ravensfire

The current law places greater weight on the opposition NOT voting, rather than voting against a law. That problem was highlighted in the poll discussion on that law, and it was still passed. I have, and will continue to advocate using that provision as an opposition strategy.

Given that the same law ignores the voice of abstain except for determining quorum, I see no problems with my strategy.

Rail against my strategy all you want, DaveShack. You supported the very law that makes such a strategy viable. You are responsible for the plan you so dislike.

-- Ravensfire

This is just silly. If you oppose a law then vote no on it, instead of procrastinating and not voting at all. This is a democracy, if you don't vote then you give up your right to participate. We passed that certain voting law because a lot of people didn't care enough to vote and were tieing up the legal process. Now stop with this legal babble and do something productive.

DZ, my suggestion to correct Article I has already been made - refer to the poll thread on that Article. I still see the perfectionist tendancies, the hostility and the refusual to keep things simple that drove me away from the DG. I also see this game becoming a fiefdom of a few certain people, determined to shove their concepts down the throats of all (nobody involved in this discussion, btw). The dictates from above drained a great deal of my excitement, energy and desire to participate in a more active manner. I still observe discussions, vote on polls and comment on a few things that I find particularly foolish.

I'll be the first to admit to my own perfectionist tendencies. That is why I feel that any prospective amendment should be started in the Citizens Forum; our Constitution requires it. ;)


To state that any citizen would "use the polls forum to be a cog in the wheel" by stating my preference and describing a viable voting strategy is distressing.

It's just that you seem to be determined to prove that Article I doesn't work, and are using each Amendment poll to prove it. I told you that I would gladly hear an amendment proposal based on your suggestions, once we dodged the Constitutional crisis caused by the original Article I. Do I need to sponsor your bill as well?

Nothing like the tyranny of the majority to silence the voice of dissent, eh DZ?

Yet ironically, you would be delighted to subject this nation to a tyranny of the minority by silencing your own voice, at least on public record. I am perfectly fine with your attempting to do so, but it is within my rights to comment on your strategy.

For the people complaining about the null vote strategy - too bad. The current law introduced it as a viable strategy for those of us opposed to a proposed amendment. In fact, I pointed that out in the poll discussion. To berate someone for using a viable, legal and quite logical strategy in opposition to something they don't like is foolish.

I wasn't complaining about it; it was I who reminded you to stick to your principles, remember? :D It just seems like you are trying a bit hard for the self-fulfilling prophecy, even if your proposal has merit.

Fear not though. Your dislike of me, your displeasure of my tactics is irrelevant. I will still be here, taking shots from afar as so many have done to me in the past.

-- Ravensfire

Who said I didn't like you? :confused: RF, we have enjoyed mutual respect before, and I don't really see that changing on this end. Just know that I too get carried away sometimes, but my intentions are usually good.

I see no point in celebrating the passage of a bad amendment. It is not true that a bad law is better than no law at all.

DZ,

Sorry on the last part - an edit didn't remove enough, so please ignore the "dislike of me" part. Thanks!

It is true that I don't like Article I. It has problem, and needs to be fixed. I don't have enough energy to try driving a correction through - still scarred from DG4. My plan is to continue to highlight the weaknesses of Article I, by showing exactly how a few people CAN prevent amendments being passed. Call it, hmmm, civil disobediance.

Likewise with my disapproval of public polls. I've already seen comments made about how people voted, comments with negative implications. That's flat out wrong, anyone that does it should be ashamed of themselves. To right to vote as a citizen MUST include the right to vote without critisicm of your choice. Anything else represent potential restraint of free speech through voting your preference, not the option that will result in the least amount of criticism.

BTW - is there any active effort to put together a lower body of law, or allow single laws yet? I'm quite disappointed that we couldn't bother to do this up front - yet another example of starting a game before the rules were nailed down. This is badly, badly needed. Our Constitution is rapidly becoming bloated because many of the details must be shoved into it, when they need to be in a law. The current deputy discussion is a prime example of that. Look at the initial proposal, and the bloated pile that is currently being looked at.

-- Ravensfire

-- Ravensfire

Too bad you only hang in the poll sub-forum, ravensfire. You'd be able to answer your own question. ;)

Too bad you only hang in the poll sub-forum, ravensfire. You'd be able to answer your own question. ;)

Ah yes, that small thing buried in a poorly titled thread. Saw it. Laughed at it. One small law, still too complex.

Sorry, Cyc, if you want to drive the framework in better direction, much effort needs to be made to work with those drafting amendments to keep general info in the Con, and details in lower law. That's not being done.

Interestingly enough, our rush to start this actually gave us no real way to pass a lower set of laws. You can't create a proposed law that sets the rules on passing laws, then use those rules to pass that law. Cart before the horse, you know? Wonderful quagmire we created for ourselves with our haste. :rolleyes:

-- Ravensfire

@ ravensfire, as I metioned to zorven, the law that governs the parameters of passing amendments to the CoL in prior Demogames was in the CoL. The CoL was created and included in those Laws was a way to amend them.

As you know, I was not responsible for starting before we were ready, so laugh it up. I've been laughing at your ineffective attempts to change the game, too. Good thing we're old friends, eh?