Citizen Rights

Strider

Strider

In Retrospect
Joined
Jan 7, 2002
Messages
8,984
This shouldn't be a very controversial or long discussion. Basically, what should the rights of every demogame Citizen be?

Right to Assemble
Right to Vote
Right to Free Spech
Right to Free Movement
Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
Right of Representation

Any I'm forgetting?
 
That pretty much sums up our citizens rights :).
 
RoboPig said:
right to be elected
Click to expand...

No, this would imply the right to win an election, which isn't quite what we want to say. I think "The right to be eligible to hold office" is what you're aiming for.
 
We haven't had the usual question of "what is the right to free movement". :)

This right fits in with potential local government systems where the residents of a city or province might get special benefits based on their location.
 
DaveShack said:
No, this would imply the right to win an election, which isn't quite what we want to say. I think "The right to be eligible to hold office" is what you're aiming for.
Click to expand...
yeah thats it
 
I beleve we should add in "The right to be eligible to hold office" and "The right to run in an election" (Not sure about the termonology of this one since I feel that all citizens should not be denyed the right to run for an office, regardless of individual flaws and party affiliation)
 
I think there should be some right to do anything not specificly forbinden by our consitution. (or CFC rules but this goes without saying)
 
Another thing I'd like to see is implied citizenship. Simply put, we should not deny anyone the rights of a citizen because of a technicality like not being in the citizen registry. If someone forgets to officially sign up, instead of making a big deal of it, we should just point out what needs to be done and give them a reasonable time period to do it.
 
DaveShack said:
Another thing I'd like to see is implied citizenship. Simply put, we should not deny anyone the rights of a citizen because of a technicality like not being in the citizen registry. If someone forgets to officially sign up, instead of making a big deal of it, we should just point out what needs to be done and give them a reasonable time period to do it.
Click to expand...

Easy enough - "A citizen is any member of the civFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry."

Done.

-- Ravensfire
 
No i think we definantly need to have citizenship only through the citizens thread.

Citizens must sign the registry vote from other places, who decided what a citizen is, some might like to only lurk and vote which is fine. some might only post everynow and then. But to do these things they must sign the citizens registry.

Other wise who gets legal protection of our rights ect. For instance if a off topic member just pops in and votes, or if a jerk comes on and tells everyone whats going to happen in the game (by cheating) then the moderators should ban them or kick them. but if a citizen plays ahead the moditators should leave it to the court.
 
I think a compromise can be reached here: a person does not have to post in the citizen's registry before they can post anything (some might miss the forum and jump into one of the sub-forums first) but must register within let's say 48 hours of being asked to by PM. Also someone might not get a PM before they log off and not come back on for a couple of days so this should apply to their first log on after the PM is sent.

-the Wolf
 
Again - why? What benefit is there from requiring someing to post in a thread? None.

Drawbacks - plenty. People patrol that, looking to yank people around for a meaningless mistake, an oversight. Or have you forgotten about that? DG6, Term 1 - go look, and tell me what benefit came from the citizen registry.

Make the only act that matters the one needed for citizenship - participation.

-- Ravensfire
 
If we really want the citizen registry to be accurate, we could ask for a SQL which looks for who has posted and voted in DemoGame forums, and populate the citizen registry automatically. Maybe it could even update a "last posted" field.

What do citizens gain from the registry?
  • A place to make their choices for city / unit names known.
  • "Recognition" as being a citizen. :confused:
What does the Demogame gain from the registry?
  • Census information? Nope, we've gone to using the average number of votes in elections.
  • The possibility that non-citizens can be identified and their votes invalidated? This is a bad thing for the game because it can make the game less fun.
  • A way for legal eagles to get their jollies? Well, yes but is that what we want? :shakehead
Let's give it a rest from being a mandatory requirement, at least at the Constitution level. If problems develop we can always add it into the CoL. :thumbsup:
 
Here is the draft rule for the Constitution:

  1. A citizen is any member of the civFanatics forums that participates in the Democracy Game in any way. Citizens are encouraged, but not required, to post in the Citizen Registry.
  2. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
    • The Right to Assemble
    • The Right to Vote
    • The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
    • The Right to Free Speech
    • The Right to Free Movement
    • The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
    • The Right to Presumption of Innocense unless proven guilty
    • The Right of Representation
  3. These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times.
 
The game is about buliding a goverment to play the game, the legitimate goverment elected by the citizens. Citizens must be "some one" other wise how will census or quorm work. Also some people find the courts and such fun. For a citizen to be represented it means they must be a citizen.
 
How about this one, lovingly ripped off from article 1 of the US constitution

"Right of the citizens to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I could see this as being important should the citizens decide overwhelmingly that there are problems with the constitution, or one of the branches of government. By consensus a vote of no confidence may then be initiated that, if successful, would require a dissolution and general election for the branch of government in question or a constitutional convention to address problems with the constitution.

Cheers!
 
We have used "redress of grievances" in the past to mean the ability to accuse someone of a crime. One alternative way of saying the same thing has been "demand satisfaction". I've been kinda ignoring this one because it provides too many people with a sword that they are unfortunately all too willing to use.

In the sense of "right to protest", that is covered quite well within freedom of speech. The ability to petition the government to make a change will be handled in the article on decision making, basically by saying that a majority vote is sufficient to compel action except where a higher requirement is specified in the Constitution. The only other place a higher requirement would show up is in the article on amendments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Thoughts On Balance
Replies
1
Views
414
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
Tekamthi
road-only diplo units
Replies
0
Views
375
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Martiquin
Better Vassals
Replies
4
Views
1K
Trumtram
T
A
  • Poll Poll
[Poll] Preference of City View Features
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
JNZS13
J
Morgawr
  • Article Article
Guide to reliable culture 🎵 victory by T65
Replies
16
Views
2K
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
Back
Top Bottom