Constitutional Article Discussion: Article G

Immortal

Deity
Joined
Feb 18, 2002
Messages
5,950
Code:
Article G.  All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month. All 
            elected positions left in absentia for two calender weeks shall be
            considered vacent. The deputy will fulfill the remainder of the term
            as it is the runner-up in the election. In absence of a runner-up an
            appointed citizen shall be the deputy.

Proposal was defeated. It is now the job of those who voted against the article to make it acceptable and repropose it for polling. Please discuss the article.
 
I voted no on it because I felt the two week absence was far too long to wait to declare a position vancant. I would also like the article to be clarified regarding excused and unexcused absences. For example, if the absence is posted in the absence thread, should the wait be longer as opposed to if a person just didnt show up?

I propose Excused absenses of two weeks or longer should be forced to resign the position, but can enter an early nomination for the next term's elections. The deputy would take over. An honorable discharge so to speak. Whereas unexcused dissappearances should be granted only one week, then should be removed from office and replaced by the deputy.

I would almost support barring from further elections, but that is too extreme even in my book. I think the disappearance would be remembered and used by any of the person's opponents in future elections.

Sorry I joined too late to express my grievances in the FIRST discussion thread.
KCC
 
Since this section of the constitution needs to be rethought anyway, what do people think about:
1. Elected deputies rather than runner-up from the election
2. Deputies switching mid-term, ie election for position happens on 1st of month, election for deputy happens on 15th of month

I'm a fan of 1 week rather than 2 for absences, and I do like the idea of differentiating between explained and unexplained absences
 
Things we should consider, then:

1. Term length. Based on the calendar month, or game turns?

2. Period of time required to be declared in absentia.

3. Deputy selection. Runner up, or appointed?

I'm not going to touch number 1. I really don't care - both systems suit me. As a note, the turn-based term works well in our PTWISDG team.

As for the absentia stuff, I'd say just strike all written time limits. There are too many nuances to be considered in those cases. Allow me to suggest new language: "Should the President consider an offical to be absent, he may promote that official's deputy or, in cases where there is no deputy, appoint another citizen, to officially act in the absent offical's place in order to fulfill all of that official's duties. The absent official may reclaim all of his or her duties upon his stated return."
In a nutshell, the President can promote the deputy or appoint a new citizen to 'acting Minister of whatever/CJ/AJ/PD,' whenever the President feels the elected person is absent. But, when that absent guy returns and posts that he has done so, he can reclaim his job.
 
I have the following views on game length and turns.
Earlier turns has a larger strategic impact in making the foundation of the empire and later turns are more interesering and intense with more cities, units and technologies in place.

1. Term Length should be progressively built up along the lines along eras. but still must be of predictable nature, so we can arrange elections. A purely turn based system makes it impossible for moderators and justices to run legal cases and arrange elections, as the running of those turns may vary. However, making a hybrid between the two of those would make perfectly sense. In fact, everything revolves around technologies, strategic resources and the ability to build special units.

This means that the strategy crafted by one administration effectively ends with the revelation of a new strategic resource, defining Japans chances to expand. So by dividing terms by the revelation of these techs, we would balance the type of strategy followed, allow to have consistent policies through one term based on that tech and resource, and make the administration accountable for their actions. Did they do well or not with the cards and resources they had been given. In order to generate proper time ahead of an election, it should also be a general rule that strategic resource techs are well planned research goals, so that elections are announced when the research path of the tech preceding the resource tech and the resource tech itself are
announced and fixed. This means low flexibility in the conclusive days of the administration and a smooth transition for the next administration to take over not too much of the old policies of the old administration. Yet, there must be deadlines on this development of terms by resource tech, so creating a window of say 25-35 days would suffice, very close to a month but still flexible except for the inclusion of the resource tech deadline of the administration, announced by the tech dept.


Iron Term 1
Saltpeter Term 2 Gunpowder
Coal Term 3 steam
Oil/rubber Term 4 refining
Aluminium/Uranium Term 5 whichever comes first

2. Period of time required to be declared in absentia
1 week
failure to deliver on defined deadlines agreed on by minister

Deputy selections should be minister appointed, like in real life. Especially if the campaign has been known to see some mudslining or very opposite logics of doctrine.
A minister must have the freedom to organize his own dept. Yet, I see that even if Sarevok and Falcon02 would cooperate very well in the Milli dept, that does not apply to all cases. I think the minister should know what additional skills he needs.
In fact, I may even consider running mates in elections for ministries, so people can select a real management team for each ministry.
 
the main reason why i voted against this article was the time a pos was allowed to be vacant. 2 weeks is way to much. it should be lowered to 4-5 days.

also, an alternate/deputy should always be present, in order to speed up the sucession of the post.
 
I would say 6 days total unless documented in the Official Absense thread.

Calendar based Terms.

And appointed.
 
Term lengths need to be calendar months. That way everyone knows exactly when the next election will be. There is potential for damaging participation with a turn-based or other non-calendar setup.

The criteria for absent we used in DG4 was actually pretty good: Has not posted instructions in two successive turnchat instruction threads. Effectively this means 6-7 days but being event based vs. calendar based, is easier to understand.

How about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?
 
A potential problem with provolution's suggestion is that if I'm in a bad administration, who's done a shocking job and is going to get voted out, why should I hurry that up by going for Gunpowder, when it's going to trigger my demise? Better to have a bit more fun, avoid gunpowder and research other things. (Not saying I'd do that, just saying the method is open to manipulation)
 
Civman2004 said:
A potential problem with provolution's suggestion is that if I'm in a bad administration, who's done a shocking job and is going to get voted out, why should I hurry that up by going for Gunpowder, when it's going to trigger my demise? Better to have a bit more fun, avoid gunpowder and research other things. (Not saying I'd do that, just saying the method is open to manipulation)

I agree. And I am sure that politicians could find many other more subtle ways to manipulate the time they serve.
 
DaveShack said:
Term lengths need to be calendar months. That way everyone knows exactly when the next election will be. There is potential for damaging participation with a turn-based or other non-calendar setup.

The criteria for absent we used in DG4 was actually pretty good: Has not posted instructions in two successive turnchat instruction threads. Effectively this means 6-7 days but being event based vs. calendar based, is easier to understand.

How about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?

I actually agree with you all the way on these, DS, except for the time allotted to a deadbeat. I believe 6 days is a better length, as normally there are two chats a week. We'd go 3 days, have a chat, then go four days and have another. With the six day limit, it will be possible to get Instructions posted for a chat by the deadbeat's replacement. With a 7 day limit, we'd have to wait until the next chat.
 
Originally Posted by: DaveShackHow about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?

I think deputies either need to be set to be the runner-up in the election or appointed. I think allowing the the minister to choose whether or not to keep the runner up sets up the game for bitter relationships and unsportsmanlike decisions. Either Runner-Ups always stay, or deputies are Always appointed.

I do not support electing deputy ministers, as deputy positions are perfect positions for new/unexperienced players to learn not only how to play this version of the demogame, but also how to improve their Civ3 gameplay. If you hold elections, new players are less likely to win the deputy elections. They have a much better chance of taking second place in a general election in my opinion.
 
DaveShack said:
Term lengths need to be calendar months. That way everyone knows exactly when the next election will be. There is potential for damaging participation with a turn-based or other non-calendar setup.

The criteria for absent we used in DG4 was actually pretty good: Has not posted instructions in two successive turnchat instruction threads. Effectively this means 6-7 days but being event based vs. calendar based, is easier to understand.

How about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?
I agree on the point that the term lengths should be one calender month long.

A agree on that the runner-ups in the elections should be deputies, but I disagree on allowing the offical to appoint a replacement at anytime unless the deputy has been absent without notice for a week and/or that there is an ability to sack a deputy legaly.
 
Is this Consitutional Article going to go into the polls? I realy want to see this done and compleated :). If there are no responces, I am willing to repoll this with the changes noted.
 
CivGeneral, please read the Judicial Procedures in post #3 of the Judicial thread concerning Proposed Legislative Polls for Constitutional Amendments. All proposed polls should be submitted to the Court for Judicial Review first. Thanks.
 
Cyc said:
CivGeneral, please read the Judicial Procedures in post #3 of the Judicial thread concerning Proposed Legislative Polls for Constitutional Amendments. All proposed polls should be submitted to the Court for Judicial Review first. Thanks.
Ugh, More Beurocratic Nonsense, This proposal should have passed before the nominations started :rolleyes:.
 
This what I have so far for Article G, and it seems to address several of the electoral issues we face in the Term 1 elections(runoff polls, majority/plurality, deputies) as well as some of the new ideas discussed here(amnesty for prior notice absences, 6 day limit). I decided to remove the runoff rhetoric from Article H becauseit just seemed to make more sense here.

Code:
Article G.  All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, 
            with each position being granted to the candidate who receives 
            the largest number of votes in that election, [i](optional)with the 
            runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive 
            and Legislative Branches[/i].  In the event of a tie between two 
            or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between 
            those candidates only.  All elected positions left in absentia 
            for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant.

Now, this is just a starting point, hopefully, if you like what you see so far. We still need to determine the role of deputies in the election. Are they the runner up or appointed? We also still have to determine the process of removal and replacement of an absent leader. Please let me know what you think.
 
Top Bottom