Public Investigation #6: Chat Poll Ignored

I am reporting a violation of chat citizens' rights during the June 12 chat turn. There was a vote held to trade Medicine away for other goods. Here is the transcript:

[22:37] <Chieftess> I think we should have a spot vote on
selling medicine.
[22:37] <punkbass2000> I agree
[22:37] <donsig> ok
[22:37] <chiefP> sure, just to sell medicine
[22:37] <donsig> all those in favor of selling medicine
vote 'yes'
[22:37] <punkbass2000> yes
[22:37] <donsig> vote = no
[22:37] <chiefP> yes
[22:37] <Chieftess> How many sheilds is ToE?
[22:37] <eyrei> i think we should stop
[22:38] <eyrei> trading med could be a major turning point
[22:38] <Chieftess> that's 3 to stop.
[22:38] <eyrei> it needs to be debated
[22:38] <sike2> vote = no
[22:38] <donsig> let's see if selling med even passes the
spot vote
[22:38] <chiefP> I don't think we should stop on trade
deals
[22:38] <Chieftess> vote = yes
[22:38] <donsig> if it doesn't pass the spot vote why stop?
[22:38] <eyrei> we are in no hurry
[22:38] <Chieftess> I think we have enough in the prebuild.
[22:38] <eyrei> because we wont be able to trade it as
soon as someone else gets it
[22:39] <punkbass2000> 3-2

then a bit later...
[22:58] <punkbass2000> We did vote 3-2 in favour of
selling, I thought
[22:58] <Chieftess> yes.
[22:58] <RedRain> i vote in favor
[22:58] <Curufinwe> I favour it
[22:58] <donsig> 8 turns.... next erm?
[22:59] <punkbass2000> 4-2
[22:59] <punkbass2000> 5-2

then later...
[23:02] <eyrei> and abstain from the other
[23:02] <punkbass2000> 5-2-1

See the full log for more details.

The trade was not carried out and the game was stopped. The President had asked the Trade advisor to make trade recommendations. The Trade advisor complied. The President called a vote on it. Voting was 3-2 initially and then pushed to 5-2-1 after much debate.

Clearly the vote was in favour of trade. The game was stopped because of the debate following the vote and the trade did not take place. I do not believe the player had the right to stop the game over the results of the vote but had the obligation to carry it out.

I propose the subject of this investigation be Donsig, the player, for not carrying out the wishes of the citizens. I encourage citizens to review the entire log, if possible, to make the best judgement on these circumstances. It may be found in the turn chat thread under the Government Subforum.

The president with the cooperation of the domestic leader clearly violated the constitution.

Donsig not being content with his limited veto under the constitution now seeks to veto votes he calls that go against him. The president is clearly out of control and needs to be removed from office.

There is no defense of the actions that were taken. It is clearly a violation of the consitution. The relevant articles were brought to the attention of the president and were ignored.

This is not democracy, its dictatorship.

Well, I was going to let Donsig post first in his defense, but I guess that is no longer a possibility.

I will begin by saying that I believe that what President Donsig did was in the best interests of the nation, and that no harm will come of ending the turn before these trades were made. Should discussion unveil that the citizens of Phoenatica do not desire these trades, great harm to the decision making power of the populace will have been avoided. Even if it is decided that these trades should take place, we will know that the will of the people has been followed. As there is no actual harm done, I ask all Phoenaticans to see this investigation for the farce that it is, and thank their President for standing up to his peers to ensure that democracy is upheld in our great nation.

I agree that the constitution was violated. However, the constitution is a document created to codify the rights of citizens, and to make holy the tenets of democracy, not to protect the power of those who can attend turn chats. Nor is the constitution the parent of democracy. Rather, in all things, the constitution must bow to the will of the ideal, as from that ideal it was born.

I ask that those who would subject our President to this treatment, for doing what he felt was right, to prove beyond a doubt that he has harmed Phoenatica or democracy in any way.

Here are all constitional articles pertaining to this;
"Section oArticle 3: The Designated Player reserves the right to use Cabinet Votes instead of Citizen Spot Polls." Donsig called a spot poll, thus cabinet choice waved.
Section L ARticle 7:" Spot votes are Administrative votes carried out within the turn chat. They are called by the designated player." This states that a spot if called has administrative power, donsig called one thus waving rights of past article, he also refused to follow the spot votes administrative authority.
Section O Article 8: "Devoicing actions and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls will be investigated in the forum in the Public Investigation Thread." Exclusion of citizen spot polls, that was done, it was called and therefore had administrative authority.
This shows what an Administrative vote is, this must also include spot votes under Section L Article seven :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" If spot votes are Aministrative votes like said earlier than they over rule the decision of others and decide gameplay
Section JArticle 1:" It may become evident that an elected official isn't making decisions based on the results of the opinon polls. " He ignored an opinion poll and an administrative vote (spot though, so less authority I'm guessing)
Section E Article 5: "Trade Leader: Makes decisions and provides advice to the President on establishing trade deals. Tracks the status and expiration dates on established deals, advising the President and other council members of the same. " Therefore they are mostly councillors but makes decisions on trade deals is in there. Also ignored by Donsig.
Section E Article 6:" Domestic Leader: Makes decisions about settler placement, wonder building and budget. Is responsible for setting the science/lux/tax rate. He/she is also the Provincial Governor of the Capital Province. " However the thing was related to wonders and eyrei wished the same as donsig (correct me if I'm mistaken)
SEction O Article 6:" Violations of the chat rules will result in the offender being devoiced" Donsig violated chat rules, thus should be devoiced.

I've laid evidence for you, anyone care to add?

Originally posted by eyrei
I agree that the constitution was violated. However, the constitution is a document created to codify the rights of citizens, and to make holy the tenets of democracy, not to protect the power of those who can attend turn chats. Nor is the constitution the parent of democracy. Rather, in all things, the constitution must bow to the will of the ideal, as from that ideal it was born.

Click to expand...

Not to protect the power of those who can attend the turn chtas, is this not an example of you trying to protect the power of a person who did, thus your argument is thin their. If we are to have no guidance we can do nothing more than decide according to the constitution, so what were we to do, the people who were at the demogame at the time were primarily on the turn chat, thus we had a representation of the citizens at that time. we were violating no opinion poll and had the Cabinet behind us who are the citizens representatives, thus they had the authority to do so. No law broken, and everything legal for us, but not so for Donsig.

Originally posted by eyrei


I agree that the constitution was violated. However, the constitution is a document created to codify the rights of citizens, and to make holy the tenets of democracy, ....

Click to expand...

The constitution represent the will of the citizens and was agreed to by them to limit unilateral action. They elected representatives with the belief they would act in accord with that document.

The harm in this matter is that Donsig supported by yourself simply wish to flout the votes of elected representatives who are acting in the interests of the people.

The truth of what is Behind this is you simply don't wish there to be a turn chat process as you repeatedly stated in the turn chat to such a degree that it was suggested that you be devoiced for being disruptive. The net result was that because the cabinet voted against your wishes, you chose to advocate violating the constitution.

What purpose is there to having a constitution when cabinet members can ignore it at will. Do we have to have to an investigation each week? When you were elected to office did you not agree to uphold this document which is in place to ensure the people's wishes are carried out? Is ignoring a legal vote part of how you protect democracy?

I sincerely hope that the citizen's recognize this breach of trust and punish it accordingly.

It was certainly a violation of the constitutional rules, but ground for Impeachement? I'm not sure.

It seems our president only wanted good, that the entirety of the populace should vote. But spot votes are there for a reason, and rules are there to be followed.

So the question is. Did Donsig break the rule due to egoistic reasons, or for the sake of democracy?

I agree that there was a violation. As Trade Leader, my trade proposals were not followed during the trade chat. In fact, I asked a good 3-4 times about the trades, but nothing came of it. Only more debates. Not only was the Trade vote ignored, the Game Stoppage vote was ignored:


[23:14] <donsig> ok = the only out is see is to vote on
stopping
[23:14] <donsig> yes = stop, no = continuue
[23:14] <punkbass2000> granted, eyrei
[23:14] <donsig> please vote
[23:14] <eyrei> yes
[23:14] <punkbass2000> no
[23:14] <Chieftess> no.
[23:15] <Curufinwe> actually sciences vote has no
authority on this trae
[23:15] <Curufinwe> and no

Later on:


[23:31] <donsig> We are stopping because there is a major
decision to be made and a cabinet member called for us
to stop
[23:32] <donsig> after an hour of discussion with no
agreement reached stoppig for more input seems
appropriate
[23:32] <donsig> if I'm breaking votes then I'll face the
consequences.
[23:34] <donsig> all this can be laid out in the forums
and if need be we can do the trades before Sundays turn
chat.
[23:34] <donsig> making the trades opens up possibilities for police stations

[23:36] <donsig> well. post the logs
[23:36] <sike2> zzzzzzzz
[23:36] <donsig> we can startt the foorum debates now


Of note:

Since when does one member (not the president) decide when to stop? Even if the stop is valid, the trade vote WAS NOT carried out within the timeframe of the turn chat. Sorry to say this Donsig (as your VP), but it seems as though you were avoiding this turn chat.

The constitution represent the will of the citizens and was agreed to by them to limit unilateral action. They elected representatives with the belief they would act in accord with that document.

The harm in this matter is that Donsig supported by yourself simply wish to flout the votes of elected representatives who are acting in the interests of the people.

Unfortunately, those representatives were not acting in the interests of the people, as they did not know the interests of the people.

Donsig and I were also elected to represent the will of the people. Do not speak of unilateral action. That is what was attempted by those who wished to make a major decision without consulting their constituents. What we did was to protect the power of the electorate and to keep the game from being played essentially by a few people.

The truth of what is Behind this is you simply don't wish there to be a turn chat process as you repeatedly stated in the turn chat to such a degree that it was suggested that you be devoiced for being disruptive. The net result was that because the cabinet voted against your wishes, you chose to advocate violating the constitution.

The suggestion that I be devoice was absurd, and had anyone acted upon, they would also be under investigation. I have said time and time again that I do not wish there to be a turn chat, at least in the manner that we not practice. However, I was not attempting to sabotage the turn chat, and to suggest that is rather nonsensical. I have always been attentive and productive at turn chats. However, at this one, I saw decisions being made that had no business being made without any forum discussion. Therefore I made my position quite clear, and will continue to do so.

What purpose is there to having a constitution when cabinet members can ignore it at will. Do we have to have to an investigation each week? When you were elected to office did you not agree to uphold this document which is in place to ensure the people's wishes are carried out? Is ignoring a legal vote part of how you protect democracy?

That vote may well have been legal, but it was not democratic. My main problem with the turn chats is the chat votes for this very reason. I did nothing but try to ensure that the people's wishes were carried out. Since they had not been informed of the situation there was no way the people could have formed an opinion.

I sincerely hope that the citizen's recognize this breach of trust and punish it accordingly.

There was no trust breached. The breach of trust would have occurred had Donsig not stopped the game when he did.

Originally posted by Chieftess
I agree that there was a violation. As Trade Leader, my trade proposals were not followed during the trade chat. In fact, I asked a good 3-4 times about the trades, but nothing came of it. Only more debates. Not only was the Trade vote ignored, the Game Stoppage vote was ignored:

Click to expand...

Were these trade proposals not nearly unilateral actions? Were they not voted on by a small number of people without the rest ever being informed of what was going on? I guarantee that any proposal that had been voted on by the populace on the forums would have been carried out by the president.

Originally posted by eyrei
Well, I was going to let Donsig post first in his defense, but I guess that is no longer a possibility.

I will begin by saying that I believe that what President Donsig did was in the best interests of the nation, and that no harm will come of ending the turn before these trades were made. Should discussion unveil that the citizens of Phoenatica do not desire these trades, great harm to the decision making power of the populace will have been avoided. Even if it is decided that these trades should take place, we will know that the will of the people has been followed. As there is no actual harm done, I ask all Phoenaticans to see this investigation for the farce that it is, and thank their President for standing up to his peers to ensure that democracy is upheld in our great nation.

I agree that the constitution was violated. However, the constitution is a document created to codify the rights of citizens, and to make holy the tenets of democracy, not to protect the power of those who can attend turn chats. Nor is the constitution the parent of democracy. Rather, in all things, the constitution must bow to the will of the ideal, as from that ideal it was born.

Click to expand...

So you do agree that the constitution was violated. Then why make another issue out of this? You are only avoiding the main issue at hand. That is the issue of spot votes. The issue at hand is the violation of the constitution.

Originally posted by Chieftess


So you do agree that the constitution was violated. Then why make another issue out of this? You are only avoiding the main issue at hand. That is the issue of spot votes. The issue at hand is the violation of the constitution.

Click to expand...

We are not debating whether or not the constitution was violated. That should be obvious. What we are debating is whether any harm was done, and if there was, what is an appropriate punishment. Violation of the consitution does not automatically cause the transgressor to be removed from office. It starts preceedings regarding the intent of the accused and the actual harm his/her actions may have caused.

Originally posted by eyrei


Were these trade proposals not nearly unilateral actions? Were they not voted on by a small number of people without the rest ever being informed of what was going on? I guarantee that any proposal that had been voted on by the populace on the forums would have been carried out by the president.

Click to expand...

(Unilateral.. ?? one reason I don't like real life politics.. I don't even know what the word means )

Again, that's the issue of having turn chats in the first place. Currently, the constitution allows it. It's designed to assist in obtaining what the people want. The people vote for what techs the want in the polls. The spot votes vote on a specific way to obtain it. Look at the last turn chat (before this one). We had a record number of citizens voting. If we were to stop and debate every method in the forums, NOTHING would ever get done.

The actions undertaken by you and Donsig assume that you have have some greater insight than the balance of the cabinet which is not clear to me. Perhaps an enlightened despotism is what you seek.

You can't defend as democratic an action that that violates a vote of citizen representatives. To say first let us vote on this and then to say well the vote was not what i wanted let's ignore it can harldy be democracy.

Your idea of representation is that someone who votes for you decides what it is to happen, while those who vote for others do not count. A rather curious idea of democracy.

While i did not advocate your devoicing i was certainly in sympathy with those who did given that you were adding virtually nothing to the discussion except drawing it off-topic.

A breach of trust occurs when someone agrees to do something then does not. Did you agree to the constitution? Did you agree to follow the defined process? Did you follow that process? The results are evident.

Originally posted by eyrei


We are not debating whether or not the constitution was violated. That should be obvious. What we are debating is whether any harm was done, and if there was, what is an appropriate punishment. Violation of the consitution does not automatically cause the transgressor to be removed from office. It starts preceedings regarding the intent of the accused and the actual harm his/her actions may have caused.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this quote:

I am reporting a violation of chat citizens' rights during the June 12 chat turn.

Click to expand...

seems to suggest that we are. There are constitutional laws that cover this issue. (spot/citizen votes)

Oh, and there seems to be another issue here:

(From the June 12th turn chat)

Some agreed, some did not and another called for a forum discussion on the matter. The latter minority view prevailed and it is the president's hope that our energies will be spent on deciding a comprehensive plan for building our wonders rather than on investigations.

Click to expand...

They did? I thought we voted NOT to stop the game.

[

We are not debating whether or not the constitution was violated. That should be obvious. What we are debating is whether any harm was done, and if there was, what is an appropriate punishment. Violation of the consitution does not automatically cause the transgressor to be removed from office. It starts preceedings regarding the intent of the accused and the actual harm his/her actions may have caused.

Click to expand...

Well the intent was clearly to breach the constitution.

The harm done is that citizens can have no have no faith that the constitution will be followed in the future. The next step will simply be to ignore something else. Why not tear it up and throw it away. Then you won't have any restrictions and you can do as you wish.

The purpose to which donsig called the vote was clear. No objections were raised in the buildup to the call of the vote. The vote was announced and started. The game can not be disbanded on the decision of a vote. The representatives voted in the interest of the citizens because the representatives were citizens.

The turn chat allows the game to be played by all citizens. Citizens there have the same rights as citizens who frequent the forums. Whether or not you agree this should be the case, it is the case. I only see a violation of a citizens' poll presented and further suspicious actions by powerful members to shut the game down after the vote was cast.

If the vote was challenged before the vote started, there might be a case. As it is presented, I can not agree with you and believe Donsig acted against the citizens' wishes.

And yes, there is harm done. My vote obviously did not count in this poll so why should it count in the next? What standards on voting are we endorsing?

(Rain's post is fixed... editing my post)

ok.
i did not read the log yet, but still want to comment from what i read...
as it seems to me at the moment, donsigs mistake was calling for a vote at all. if he would have stopped the chat without a vote for going to forum, it would have been ok. if he would have taken a poll and acted conforming to it, also.

further comments when i read thru the log.
another question:
how many turns were played?
were any decitison votes concerning the trade brought up in forum?