cabinet-votes obsolete?

Are our cabinet votes obsoleted by the constitution? Do we really need them?

I found some problems with cabinet-votes conflicting the constitution.

Our councilmen are forced to bring cabinet-votes to the citizenry by polls. But the constitution says:
Section D: The Cabinet
Article 2: The Department heads duties include deciding their department policy and activities based on the wishes of the citizens. Department heads should post polls and posts to get citizen input. With the poll results and input they give instructions and advice to the President who then plays them out in the game.
and also
Section J: Impeachment
Article 1: It may become evident that an elected official isn't making decisions based on the results of the opinon polls.
Which would then lead to all leaders voting in the cabinet-poll not complying to the citizen-poll posted by the councilmen being impeached, which would make the cabinet-poll totally useless.

proposal:
why not handle it like in the chat?
no cabinet-poll, except when there is a good reason for it (no conclusive citizen poll, urge of decision etc). also, if a cabinet-poll takes place, a public investigation should automatically be started (like in the chat)
another reason for a cabinet-poll would maybe be that too few (number has to be defined) citizens voted.

DISCUSSION WANTED!

I don't think cabinet polls are obsolete yet. For example, making a new amendment to the constitution, or a poll for some in-game decision (sort of like a spot-vote, except it's outside of the chat).

i maybe comply to you with the special tasks for the cabinet-polls (like the cons), which could be handled like the cabinet-spots in the chat with declaring why they took this kind of vote instead of a citizen vote.
i can not comply with you in the point of the in-game decisions. they whould be taken by the citizenry. otherwise this would only be a game of the officials and all other citizens could also leave the game without affecting it.
the reason for this game is not to watch 10 ppl play a game of civ3, but to take those ingame decisions.

I can see how those articles could be misinterpreted. Take them as they relate to each other though. The polls referenced are the ones to create policy and plans. Council Votes are a different animal.

so what should council-vote be for? and why dont use the way the chat-votes work?

Cabinet votes are to be used to make changes to the constitution and to override a decision made by one of the leaders or governors. I don't think they have been used for the second purpose yet, but we have had many changes to the constitution.

so why dont we just state this clearly in the constitution? and also we should add a rule that if a decision is overridden by a council-vote, a public investigation of this action should be taken (like in the turn-chat).
it should also be stated that citizens polls are binding!

Originally posted by disorganizer
so why dont we just state this clearly in the constitution? and also we should add a rule that if a decision is overridden by a council-vote, a public investigation of this action should be taken (like in the turn-chat).
it should also be stated that citizens polls are binding!

Click to expand...

It does. Section L:

Article 4: Administrative votes are called by the President. An affirmative result overrules an elected official's instructions and decisions for game play.

Article 5: Legislative votes are called by any Council member or the President. An affirmative result alters or amends the Constitution. The President can veto a legislative vote, preventing a change in the constitution.

Article 6: Mobilization votes are called by the President, Military Leader or Domestic Leader. An affirmative result places the economy in Mobilization mode.

Article 7: Spot votes are Administrative votes carried out within the turn chat. They are called by the designated player.

In the case of an Administrative Council Vote overriding a Leader, this is the Presidential perogative and it would be answered for at election time.

It also does say that if a Leader ignores the Citizen polls they can be impeached.

so how can there still be council votes not reflecting the citizens polls of the councilmen?

Originally posted by disorganizer
so how can there still be council votes not reflecting the citizens polls of the councilmen?

Click to expand...

Aha! I see what you're getting at now!

Council Leader's game decisions must obey the polls. Council Votes are by the concience of the voter and they don't have to match the polls. This is why we have the two automatic votes to represent the citizens.

As there are two auto citizen votes and at least one Council proponent to bring up the issue, only 2 of the remaining 5 Council members are needed to pass the measure the citizens want. It's highly unlikely that this would happen. If it does happen, it should. In this case, the majority of the Council that the citizens elected (presumably because they trusted their judgement) have decided that something is a bad idea (or good idea, as the case may be). Let it fly - it'll all wash out in the elections. If they were right, they get reelected. If they were wrong, they don't.

but the problem is ppl go away from us because they think the government has all the power.

I don't know...

I have to admit that I have not been able to spend much time looking at how the other departments are run but I think everybody has a fair shake in what goes on in Foreign Affairs. I examine the save game and post a proposal for citizen review. The plan is altered based on discussion up until just a little before the chat turn.

I guess now that I look at it, I'm pretty much doing what you suggested. The only difference is I'm starting the conversation at a particular place instead of letting it develop from scratch.

and i think these things are totally missing in the constitution.

ppl come here, read the cons and then think: why do i stay here? there are 6 guys playing a game of civ3. so what? i have nothing to do in there.
if you only read the cons and not the forum-threads (+logs) you get this thinking easily. so the cons should reflect how the game really works.
at the moment, it more or less reads like the gov plays, the cits watch.

That's a valid point. The Constitution concentrates almost entirely on the officials. Even though the Citizens do have decision making power, thread posting ability, etc, the only thing specifically mentioned is that they can't post binding polls. I'll start working up a new section "Citizens" that lists out citizen rights, responsibilities, and powers. I'll post it here as soon as I have a working copy so we can go over it.

yahoo! thats good. maybe it should even be the first part of the constitution... like "what is the POWER OF THE PEOPLE"?
the passage should be simple and quick understood.
if they go to the main forum and read the "what is..." thread, and then go to the cons, they should have the first thread about their power. some will then even quit reading further, so the first sentences should point out all positive things about being a citizen.

Originally posted by disorganizer
yahoo! thats good. maybe it should even be the first part of the constitution...

Click to expand...

Yeah, first or second (Game Mechanics being the other choice).

now could we also agree of taking some power out of the cabinet-votes?

* maybe we should state that all in-game decisions should be taken as citizens polls to the forum, if immediate action is needed taken as citizen poll in the chat.
* we should state that cabinet-votes are primarily for constitutional decisions. they should also have the power to overturn any other decision, but will then face public investigation and maybe lead to empeachment of the initiator, no matter wheter being on forum or chat.
* and important: citizen polls, no matter which, are binding for the cabinet. no should like its in the cons now. a must.

did i forget something ?

You're going to have a harder time bringing me around on this one, my friend.

1 - There are too many decisions for all of them to be taken to the polls. Pure democracies just don't really work well. Many decisions are made in the discussion threads without any poll. Many of the little decisions are "automatics" based on the larger ones. What would help here is to get more organized. Foreign Affairs, and now Domestic Dept as well, post a link to their discussion threads and polls inside their department threads. If a citizen can subscribe to just the department threads and be guaranteed to be alerted to every discussion and poll, this would help imensely.

2 - The specific powers of the votes are already spelled out in the Constitution. I feel very strongly that Council Votes must be a vote of concience. If you remove all tension and discord you also remove growth and evolution.

3 - I already do this so it wouldn't make a difference in how I run my office day to day. I'm pretty sure the rest of the Cabinet does as well. I'm leary of putting manacles on officials though. There will always be the case where a late fact changes or invalidates a previous discussion. With this rule as law there would be no option for a Leader to use his/her intelligence to adapt a situation. My action of not including the chat/turn article in the last amendment is a good example. New information made the original poll suspect or invalid. I used my judgement to exclude it and was vindicated. If this rule had been in place I would have had no choice but to include it and a grand new mess would have been created.

1- im with you on this one. a clear discussion thread with no contras should be handled like a poll. and departments should get organized better (maybe dont make it a rule, but a recomendation?)
2+3- so whats so anoying about having to face public investigation in the forum for a leaders decision against a poll? if he was right, ppl will not punish him there (you should have the exprience with the investigation#1). if he was wrong, he will get a "last warning" or is sued by the citizens, which could happen anyway. so if we implement the chat-rulez to the forum this could work well. the leader still has the oportunity to decide something, but will always think about wheter he really wants to do it and wheter he has a good reason to do so.

But my action that led to investigation #1 was done knowing that I wasn't breaking a rule. The rule was that I should follow the poll result. You're proposing that we make the rule that I must follow the poll result. If I must follow the poll results then there are many repercussions. 1st, there's no need for Council Votes and I think they're a valuable part of the game. 2nd, there's no need for the At-Large Councilors and I think they're also a valuable part of the game. 3rd, people like me who are rule sticklers would be unable to exercise our judgement because the rule prevents us from doing so.

EDIT: I also think that the existing rules are taking care of this very well, as we saw in investigation #1. Since we already have a way to monitor and judge against poll infractions I don't think it's necessary to go a step further.