Charge #1
Dismissed.
Charge #2
COL.C.3.A
"A quorum (of a Council Vote) requires the attendance of 2/3 of the Council. "
In a recent turn chat, Shaitan declared a Spot Council Vote official when the vote count was officially 0-0. He cast the deciding vote. This is clearly against COL.C.3.A of our laws.
For further clarification, a Spot Council Vote is clearly considered an official Council Vote as the clause COL.C.3.G is clearly placed under the heading of "Council Votes."
In addition, a quorum is defined as "The number of participants required to ensure that a substantial portion of the decision makers are represented." A substantial portion of the decision makers were not represented in this decision, further establishing the fact that this was not a valid poll because it did not meet the participation requirements to be considered one. (See definition of 'valid' in our Three Books)
This incident occurred in our last Turn Chat on Wednesday, November 13. (490 B.C. TC)
RESPONSE:
This situation has actually occurred in virtually every chat as we have never held to a quorum for Spot Votes during a chat. The lack of a quorum exclusion in the printed rules was an omission of accident that has simply not been noticed until now. The intent of the missing exclusion has been observed since the implementation of Spot Votes in DG1. A brief look through any chat log will show evidence of a lack of 4 Councilors for these votes by almost every DP who has held a chat. I would ask that evidence be presented that a quorum for Spot Votes has been generally required in the past.
The following quotes support my position. They are from the recent discussion on the override vote in question. They very clearly show that my actions were viewed as legal and there was absolutely no expectation of a quorum for a Spot Vote.
LINK
Originally posted by Chieftess (Ex-President):
"Why back in my day..." atleast I had at least 1 council member to vote on an override.
Originally posted by disorganizer (Attended chat in question):
Anyway according to our rules that one is valid...
Originally posted by Chieftess (Ex-President):
I think there should be atleast 1/3 of the council department present. (that is, an advisor, deputy or chat rep present for each department) That would be atleast 2 out of 6 present. (Or, we could do 1/2). 3 out of 6.
Originally posted by Padma (Culture Leader):
Had I been at the chat, I would have voted to go the route Shaitan did.
Originally posted by Danke (Judge Advocate):
The course Shaitan followed, though amusing, was correct. He can't ignore the need for a spot vote, but there is nothing to say a spot vote with no council members present isn't vaild. His vote still breaks the tie, even a 0-0 tie.
Originally posted by chiefpaco (Former Citizen Advocate, dg1):
While I agree with the repsonders that a 0-0 is a valid case for an override, I am also confident that our DP will act with the best intentions.
Originally posted by donsig (Ex-Judge Advocate):
If it's a 0-0 tie the president breaks the tie. Sounds perfectly legal to me.
Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX (Chief Justice):
I fully agree with the well reasoned opinion provided by the Judge Advocate (welcome back Danke!)
Originally posted by Falcon02 (Military Leader):
I've really got no problems, Shaitan had a choice to make, and I agree with it
Originally posted by Strider (Science Leader):
while what Shaitan did was valid. It was not right.
Originally posted by eyrei (Domestic Leader):
The way I see it, the DP is the patch for holes in the fabric of our government. The DP can make minor adjustments to correct any mistakes that may have occurred while a decision went through our bureaucracy. If a president is not willing to do this, they have no business being president. If we continue threatening our DPs with PIs everytime they make a decision, we will soon have noone willing to do the job and/or we will still be in the middle ages come 2004 (RL).
Originally posted by Strider (Science Leader):
Shaitan.... We have no problem with you decision. You're decision was in the best interest of Fanatika.
Originally posted by Octavian X (Vice President):
I will say that I agree - Shaitan's action was legal.
Charge #3
COL.C.1.F
"Organizes decisions on what to do with Great Leaders"
Organize, as defined in our Three Books... "Organize In the context of a leaders duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player."
This would include polling, or at *least* discussing with the citizens, what to do with the Great Leader. Shaitan did neither.
This incident occurred in our November 4th Turn Chat (825 B.C. TC)
RESPONSE:
The decision on what to do with the Great Leader was a problem I inherited from the first 2 terms. I
DID start a discussion as soon as I took office.
LINK. There was low participation in the discussion thread (9 citizens posted in 48 hours). It is the duty of a Leader to make decisions in the event of a lack of participation from the citizens (Code of Laws section C-2-d-4, Leader responsibilities:
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback (forum outage, low participation, etc). From that discussion thread, the
Proposal for Strategy of Early Agression thread as well as other comments and discussion with citizens, I determined that the correct course of action was to create an army.
Charge #4
CoS.I.1
"The President will post a fixed schedule of game times. "
CoS.I.1.C
"This schedule may be updated each Sunday for the following weeks games. "
President Shaitan has not posted a fixed weekly schedule of game times (Turn Chats.)
RESPONSE:
The schedule has been posted in the
Historical Index and Turn Chat Index. This has been updated for the upcoming weeks chats on or before each Sunday. This is the same place where the schedule was posted by Chieftess in Term 1 and for Eklektikos in Term 2. There have been a total of 2 posts that I have seen (one in a chat thread and one in my Presidential thread) asking when the next chat would be. Both were referred to the above thread.
CLOSING STATEMENT
As most of the citizens know, I have consistently declined nominations for President for 8 consecutive terms (dating back through DG1). The reason I accepted the nomination for this term was that I felt the demogame was slipping. There was little discussion in the Forums, almost no organization of plans and absolutely no preplanning. Important demogame concerns (such as what to do with our first Great Leader and a Provincial Border system) had been neglected for two terms. Decisions were increasingly made during the turn chat and there was mass dissention and argument in the Forums. My goal as President this term is to bring the game back to the Forums, encourage discussion and debate, and to return us to the efficient systems that made us so successful in DG1.
My master plan has two routes of attack. The first is something that anybody can do. Specifically, I look at the game in progress and suggest topics and goals for the individual leaders to organize. I try to spark discussions and encourage active participation. The second attack is the chat turns themselves. My hope was that having the chats at 0dark thirty in the morning would force people to discuss the issues on the Forums.
I was well aware that my methods would not be popular with many citizens who had become complacent. The Leaders and the chat crews were taking the responsibility for choices during the chats and that absolved people of the necessity of doing it themselves. Doing things correctly is often more difficult than doing them incorrectly, at least at first, and people naturally resist change. I made no bones that I knew I would hit resistance and that I fully expected to be hit with PIs.
Guess what? My plan is working. For the most part the Leaders have rallied and are launching discussions on current and future topics. People are responding and have begun to give feedback across the boards. Compare the number of discussions and the activity in them this term compared to the last two terms. Compare the ease at reaching quorum this term compared to previous terms. People are getting excited and participating. I think we are on the right track again. Were not there yet but we are moving in the right direction.
I am not guilty of any of the offenses alleged by this PI. One of the charges has already been dismissed and I am confident that I have shown that my actions were not only legal, but in the best interests of and with the support of the majority of the citizens of Fanatika.
