Defining the CoC - Consitution Proposal

I have noticed that there is noting in the consitution regarding the setup of the Chain of Command. Here is the CoC that I would like to propose. It is a more traditional CoC from DG1 and DG2. I am not good at writing up a article from scratch so bear with me on this one.


Please feel free to discuss this proposal, and do feel free to add a discription for this article .

this appears to be a very useful piece of legislation/amendment/whatever it is....

i might say it need something to introduce and define it... perhaps sumthing like...

In the event that the Designated Player or President is unable to conduct business as defined by his or her office the following chain of command shall be envoked in the following order: <insert your chain of command here>

just thought id try my hand at it...

also some sort of piece defining that the office shall be passed in some sort of order of seniority in those offices that have multiples (like governor)...ill try my hand at that too...

In the case of the Chain of Command resulting in control by those offices that hold multiple members of the same title an order of seniority should be followed. Seniority shall be defined according to the order in which that seat of office was created.

that one was harder...

Ill vote against any CoC proposal outright. Especially one that defines chat representatives as anything other than volunteer citizens.

I agree that, On the topic on Govenors, Lt. Govenors, and Chat Reps, the user who have posted earlyer should have seniority than the persion who just joined today. Anyway, here is the updated proposal with Bobby Lee's intro.

Looks good so far, but we need to word the "Seniority is defined by who signed up in the citizens registery" properly.

Immortal said:

Ill vote against any CoC proposal outright. Especially one that defines chat representatives as anything other than volunteer citizens.

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate your reasons, for those of us who don't have the experience of previous DG's? It would be helpful to making an informed decision.

IMO, I beleve that a defined CoC would make things in the turnchat flow more easely if eather the President and the Vice President are not present and dont show up after the traditional 15 minutes deadline. If we dont have a defined CoC, then there would be chaos in the TC on defining who is next in line (Though some of the vets would know what to do if they were around since DG1)

CivGeneral, before Cyc says anything (as he did to me) when you are putting in your code boxes, edit them so that it isn't necessary to use the sliders at the bottom to read them. Also, makes for easier printing.

A few reasons:

A) I dont believe that deputies should have any authority above any elected individual
B) The president sets his/her own chattimes, so missing DP should be kept to a minimum
C) In the event of a crisis where the DP must leave, I think the Pres should be able to decide who he believes is best suited to continue the game in his absence.
D) I dont like the turnchat, the idea that we would have to have a "turn chat representative" running our game sends shivers down my spine.
E) If a president cant make it to his own turnchat he should define in the forum who will play it in his absence.

ok here goes a try at defining seniority properly...

Seniority shall be defined according to the order in which members were listed in the citizen registry. The first to be listed in the citizens registry shall have the highest seniority, the second listed shall hold second highest, etc. until such time as there is no longer anyone left in that office.

Immortal said:

A few reasons:

A) I dont believe that deputies should have any authority above any elected individual
B) The president sets his/her own chattimes, so missing DP should be kept to a minimum
C) In the event of a crisis where the DP must leave, I think the Pres should be able to decide who he believes is best suited to continue the game in his absence.
D) I dont like the turnchat, the idea that we would have to have a "turn chat representative" running our game sends shivers down my spine.

Click to expand...

A. I agree with you.
B. Very good point.
C. I believe this was settled by the Judiciary in favor of the President.
D. It was certainly chaotic, and there were so many people talking at once, it was hard to tell if any good ideas were brought forward. In the end, it accomplished almost nothing. And I agree, tc reps would be a waste. If we had to go that far down any CoC, we might as well pack up and go home.

That last turnchat was a cluster---- if you get my drift. Everything was running smoothly until we ran into a problem and everything exploded.

Immortal said:

That last turnchat was a cluster---- if you get my drift. Everything was running smoothly until we ran into a problem and everything exploded.

Click to expand...

In the army we called them Charlie Foxtrots. Have to be nice on the radio, you know?

I love Turn Chats. But I would mostly have to agree with Immortal here. The President should be able to schedule them around his/her own personal schedule (and, no. DaveShack is not a he/she, I just use that to be PC)

If the President leaves the game early, he can just call end of chat, or he can pass it on to a trusted citizen at the chat. The chat does not HAVE to go on.

If we had to go down a list of 8 elected Officials to find someone to run the chat, we definitely have bigger problems than putting together a COC.

You missed the Minister of Science, CG.

Bobby Lee, your'e an excellent writer. Maybe you should apply for the President's speech writer. You can speel better than I can too.

i still am in favor of a chain of command...though i must say i agree that after a certain point we should all just pack up and go home

If we do formalize a CoC please do not make it a constitutional amendment. This is something that should be in one of the lower books.

I already made a post on this elsewhere...

Anyway, it should be:

President
VP
Domestic
Military
Foriegn
Trade
Culture
Science

(bottom 3 can be debatable)

Chief Justice
Judge Advocate
Public Defender

{ The deputies of the respected advisors, in the same order }

Governors, starting with the oldest province first.

On the whole, I agree with all the points that Immortal raised, and I just wanted to clarify a few things.

I do not understand why the Vice-President should be ranked so high in the CoC. Should an official who lost an election be ranked higher than those ministers who won their respective elections? Even if the VP is appointed, then this should at least be an election issue, so at the time of the vote, citizens are aware of who will be in charge should the president go AWOL.

This is also why I am opposed to having deputies in the CoC. In my estimation, if the DP and all the ministers and justices are all missing, we should just consider the chat cancelled.

As I see it, the CoC should only be for the rare occasion where the DP disappears without any word. Generally, if the DP cannot make it to a chat or has to leave, he should be able to make a decision on who will play. In the even that the DP does go missing, I think any CoC going beyond the top elected officials is unnecessary.

I do not favor a chain of command. While I have not seen any past demogames, It would seem to me that having some form of "Official" line of succession would be a hassle! For one a Chain of Command does not guarantee an experienced player is making the moves. I am currently on both of these CoC's and I do not feel personally qualified to run a turn chat (yet). I think the best way to proceed is for the President to appoint a player to play the turn in his absence. While some people do not agree with an unelected official running the game, I remind you that it is still the President's responsibility to ensure that the game is run smoothly and correctly. It is still on his shoulders to pick the correct person. If someone messes up, it could mean his job.

I will vote down any CoC and perhaps even campaign against it if it ever makes it past discussion.

After reading the whole thread, i think a CoC is not a very good idea. It places non-elected officials above elected officials, and the whole "VicePres" issue is pretty rocky right now (no offense Chieftess). Add to that the whole turnchat issue...

Immortal and KCCrusader made some very important points here... read the posts and i think you will agree that a CoC will only complicate things.

LeeT911 said:

I do not understand why the Vice-President should be ranked so high in the CoC. Should an official who lost an election be ranked higher than those ministers who won their respective elections? Even if the VP is appointed, then this should at least be an election issue, so at the time of the vote, citizens are aware of who will be in charge should the president go AWOL.

This is also why I am opposed to having deputies in the CoC. In my estimation, if the DP and all the ministers and justices are all missing, we should just consider the chat cancelled.

Click to expand...

First of all, I would like to say I agree that the VP should be either elected separately (which would work nicely for an idea i have in mind for my idea about a Senate). In the event that how the VP is not changed I would have to say he should prolly not be in the chain of command. In the event it is changed to a decent method I see the Chain of Command always defaulting through him because that was why he was elected, to take the responsibilities of the President in the event the President himself cannot perform them.

Next, Deputies are needed because people have lives, the ministers cannot always be there so they need someone to take thier place while they go on with the real world. Deputies should also be elected though I think despite current precedents.

Finally, Cancelling a chat in the event the right people are not present is not a good idea. It leaves the doors open to violate the spirit of this Demogame without violation of any law, ammendment, or even really a precedent. A Chain of Command is needed so that the ministers under no circumstances may defy the people. (Yes, it would be petty of them and I am not speaking badly of our current ministers but precautions should always be taken.) Besides this would waste peoples time who may have had other things to do besides wait around for a turnchat that was not gonna happen.