What should a Deputy do?

There are two schools of thought on what the Deputy position entails. One side maintains that the Deputy is the head of the department when the Leader is absent. The other feels that the Deputy is responsible for running the department in the absence of the Leader. These sound similar but are actually very different.

Deputy as head of department - Follows their own lead on all deparmtmental matters. Can disregard Leader's plans in favor of their own. The department can have radical shifts each time control of the department changes.

Deputy as back-up to Leader - Follows the plans the Leader made. Adjusts them based on new circumstance but is responsible for following them as closely as possible. Makes new decisions for items that weren't addressed by the Leader. Department remains more or less on the track set by the Leader at all times.

EDIT: "Absent" is defined as not responding to a poll or Forum request for 36 hours or not being present at the turn chat.

The term absent should probably be defined as well. Absence from a turn chat is far different from absence from the forum for more than a couple days.

Please keep in mind the chaos the first option would cause, and has already caused. If you want to see an example, please see the Province of Istar thread.

I'm voting yes to this, working on the principle that Leaders should be the ones to set department policy. However I believe that whoever is acting for a department during turn chat should be allowed to alter that policy if there is a drastic change in circumstances which renders it genuinely unviable / suicidal. It can be argued that this ends up as a judgement call with no easily defined conditions, but the safeguard is that if anyone persistently goes against their leader's policy and it is felt by the leader to be unjustified he can have the deputy impeached.

Deputy as head of department - Follows their own lead on all deparmtmental matters. Can disregard Leader's plans in favor of their own. The department can have radical shifts each time control of the department changes

Click to expand...

I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats. Since Shaitan posted this poll and eyrei talks of 'chaos' the implication is that I have. I have repeatedly explained the reasons for my actions and do not feel that I disregarded the leader's plans in favor of my own. If this poll is meant to be an affirmation or rejection of my actions then the poll question must certainly be re-worded.

Originally posted by donsig


I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats. Since Shaitan posted this poll and eyrei talks of 'chaos' the implication is that I have. I have repeatedly explained the reasons for my actions and do not feel that I disregarded the leader's plans in favor of my own. If this poll is meant to be an affirmation or rejection of my actions then the poll question must certainly be re-worded.

Click to expand...

This poll is mainly to clarify the issue, so that it does not happen again. Your actions did bring the issue to light, but the poll is not aimed directly at you.

Originally posted by donsig


I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats. Since Shaitan posted this poll and eyrei talks of 'chaos' the implication is that I have. I have repeatedly explained the reasons for my actions and do not feel that I disregarded the leader's plans in favor of my own. If this poll is meant to be an affirmation or rejection of my actions then the poll question must certainly be re-worded.

Click to expand...

No, I have no desire to get involved in interdepartmental politics. This poll/discussion is the first step towards correcting a problem in the Constitution. No less, no more.

I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats.

Click to expand...

My apologies, Donsig. I didn't answer your question in my last post. I was on a brief hiatus and have not yet read the chat logs. I have nothing except heresay to evaluate your actions and it would be premature and unfair for me to do that.

Yet another poll posted by our leaders with no discussion before hand. I thought we weren't going to be railroading any more?

Yes, Donsig. I think they're ponting the finger at you. A subtle "Russia129200" approach maybe? Of course in the politically correct manner.

Again I pretty much agree with Eklektikos. If the Leader has not spelled out their plans on an issue and is "absent" from the chat, and the Deputy is present, the Deputy can make a call to bolster the defense of the nation, or take advantage of a new town site. I wanted to go against Eklektikos' call on an improvement last night to build a defensive unit as it made sense to fortify that border town. But Donsig said no, because the Governor had spelled out his wishes. In the event of the Deputy having to make a decision, it should follow the Department's basic structure, if that can be defined. If no instructions were posted, then the deputy is free to make his own decision. Just like the President if no instructions are posted.

If you Leaders are going to continue to railroad issues that are important only to you, I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities. It's the people you should be concerned about. Not yourselves.

originally posted by eyrei:

This poll is mainly to clarify the issue, so that it does not happen again. Your actions did bring the issue to light, but the poll is not aimed directly at you.

Click to expand...

Unless I wrongly disregarded your leadership eyrei there is no issue to clarify. As Eklektikos has pointed out these things boil down to judgement calls and grey areas. They have to be handled on a case to case basis because I think everyone (myself included) will agree that a deputy should follow the leader's lead.

The first grey area is whether the leader has clearly stipulated his or her goals. The second is whether there is enough of a change in circumstances for the deputy to re-evaluate a leader's orders. This poll cannot help to clarify these grey areas.

Originally posted by Cyc
Yet another poll posted by our leaders with no discussion before hand. I thought we weren't going to be railroading any more?

Yes, Donsig. I think they're ponting the finger at you. A subtle "Russia129200" approach maybe? Of course in the politically correct manner.

Again I pretty much agree with Eklektikos. If the Leader has not spelled out their plans on an issue and is "absent" from the chat, and the Deputy is present, the Deputy can make a call to bolster the defense of the nation, or take advantage of a new town site. I wanted to go against Eklektikos' call on an improvement last night to build a defensive unit as it made sense to fortify that border town. But Donsig said no, because the Governor had spelled out his wishes. In the event of the Deputy having to make a decision, it should follow the Department's basic structure, if that can be defined. If now instructions were posted, then the deputy is free to make his own decision. Just like the President if no instructions are posted.

If you Leaders are going to continue to railroad issues that are important only to you, I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities. It's the people you should be concerned about. Not yourselves.

Click to expand...

Nothing is being railroaded. The discussion simply took place in another thread, which I mentioned in my first post.

Originally posted by eyrei
The term absent should probably be defined as well. Absence from a turn chat is far different from absence from the forum for more than a couple days.

Click to expand...

I've now defined absent in the first post.

Eyrei, I can't believe how you try to buffalo the citizens over and over agin about you railroading issues. YOUR "Province of Istar" thread was a 1 page thread for 3 weeks. This morning you decided to reply to my post (maybe it was to your advantage). It the took 4.5 hours to become a 3 page thread (in the Government sub-forum). Then the discussion went to 5 hours before a poll issued by a Leader who could proclaim it the voice of the people (all 25 of us). I haven't even mentioned that you switched sub-forums, which is a very bad procedure for a Leader to take.

So you don't believe having a 5 hour discussion on a Impeachable issue and then rushing a poll in a different sub-forum (in which most people don't read the original sub-forum) isn't railroading? Get real

Originally posted by eyrei
Nothing is being railroaded. The discussion simply took place in another thread, which I mentioned in my first post.

Click to expand...

Just to help clarify things can a link to the discussion thread be posted with every poll?

That will make sure everyone is aware of the same information when voting.

(yes, I'm aware the thread was mentioned, but a link makes it much easier to get to without having to go 'hunting' for it.)

Before I post anything on this matter, I would like to call on all parties involved to think it through clearly since I sense emotions are running high and I feel "knee-jerk" posts would only inflame this issue more.

However I believe that whoever is acting for a department during turn chat should be allowed to alter that policy if there is a drastic change in circumstances which renders it genuinely unviable / suicidal.

Click to expand...

I propose that deputies only have the authority to overturn a leader's decision in his absence by calling at least a cabinet vote. It should never really come to this unless there is a huge change in circumstances because leaders and deputies are expected to communicate their views and decisions with each other. The leader's decisions must be followed otherwise.

Originally posted by Cyc
Yet another poll posted by our leaders with no discussion before hand. I thought we weren't going to be railroading any more?

Yes, Donsig. I think they're ponting the finger at you. A subtle "Russia129200" approach maybe? Of course in the politically correct manner.

If you Leaders are going to continue to railroad issues that are important only to you, I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities. It's the people you should be concerned about. Not yourselves.

Click to expand...

Okay, first this poll isn't by "our leaders" it's by me. There is no government conspiracy here. There is simply Shaitan the over caffeinated champion of the Constitution. (Call me OC3 for short)

I am not pointing any finger at anybody. I'm taking action to prevent people from pointing fingers in the future.

There is no railroading going on. Railroading would be holding a Council Vote and convincing 4 other peole that my opinon was correct. This is opening a Citizen Poll to get citizen responses and citizen opinions.

Originally posted by Cyc
Eyrei, I can't believe how you try to buffalo the citizens over and over agin about you railroading issues. YOUR "Province of Istar" thread was a 1 page thread for 3 weeks. This morning you decided to reply to my post (maybe it was to your advantage). It the took 4.5 hours to become a 3 page thread (in the Government sub-forum). Then the discussion went to 5 hours before a poll issued by a Leader who could proclaim it the voice of the people (all 25 of us). I haven't even mentioned that you switched sub-forums, which is a very bad procedure for a Leader to take.

So you don't believe having a 5 hour discussion on a Impeachable issue and then rushing a poll in a different sub-forum (in which most people don't read the original sub-forum) isn't railroading? Get real

Click to expand...

Eyrie didn't post the poll, nor did he ask me to post the poll. I posted it in the Citizen subforum as that's where Citizen Polls are supposed to go. If you have a problem with the way the poll was posted or handled then direct your criticism to me.

I'll say it over and over, each time I see it. This is railroading. This is one of the reasons I got out of the Goverment, as I saw it was too self-serving.

Originally posted by Zur
I propose that deputies only have the authority to overturn a leader's decision in his absence by calling at least a cabinet vote. It should never really come to this unless there is a huge change in circumstances because leaders and deputies are expected to communicate their views and decisions with each other. The leader's decisions must be followed otherwise.

Click to expand...

While I can see the argument in favour of this I disagree. I don't think that departments should have to get the approval of the majority of the council before making emergency changes of policy. Also, what criteria would the council be voting to? Would the decision to allow a change be based on whether they think it's the right thing to do, or whether they think the department leader would think it was the right thing to do? I say leave it up to individual judgment, let the deputy justify his actions with a good explaination to his leader and face the consequences for any abuse of power.

Originally posted by Eklektikos

While I can see the argument in favour of this I disagree. I don't think that departments should have to get the approval of the majority of the council before making emergency changes of policy. Also, what criteria would the council be voting to? Would the decision to allow a change be based on whether they think it's the right thing to do, or whether they think the department leader would think it was the right thing to do? I say leave it up to individual judgment, let the deputy justify his actions with a good explaination to his leader and face the consequences for any abuse of power.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this as well. The Deputy is in a position of trust and should be able to use his/her judgement unless that trust is betrayed. What would happen if there was an abuse of power though? Should a Leader be able to fire a Deputy? I don't like that idea as it could factionalize the game worse than parties. Maybe call for a vote of confidence?

Since I also have not read the chat log, my comments do not involve whatever issues may have come up yesterday, but I will be reading it today. My thoughts on the role of the deputies in general might be somewhat unique, since I was a deputy to Cyc, and am now a cabinet leader.

As deputy, I saw it as my job to assist the leader when I could, make suggestions, and if needed fill in when he was not at a turn chat (never happened with Cyc!) or in the forums. If I disagreed with him on an issue (as happened on the pop-rushing libraries issue), I restricted myself to posting suggestions, and clarified that they were not the official policy of the Culture Department, merely my personal opinion as a citizen. If I would have filled in for Cyc in a turn chat, I would not have advocating rushing, because it was his position, (and the official department philosophy as I saw it), that we would not rush improvements.

When the second term started, and I was the Culture Minister, then I felt it was my perogative to start polls on the cities I felt needed rushed. With the polls decided, I attended that first chat to make sure that they were implemented. However, if I couldn't attend, I would expect whoever my deputy was (in this case, Punkbass), to still inform the president of the poll decisions and rush the libraries. Because these were poll results, I don't think there would be much leeway not to.

On other turn chats, I try to post my priorities, so my deputy or rep can implement my policies. For example, I say that I want to rush a library in XTown for 150 gold, then build other libraries in A, B, and C towns as possible. I would expect my deputy to rush the library in X, since it was specific budget request, and could be done first turn. But if during the chat, town B goes into unrest, and my deputy decides changing the library to a temple would be in the best interests of the nation, I would not have a problem with that, since it is a reaction to that situation. If the deputy, however, changed A and C to temples, just because they don't like libraries, I would feel that would be out of line, and my recourse would be to move for impeachment.