Fully implement the Code of Laws

This poll is to approve the Code of Laws. The Code of Laws is currently being used with the temporary status of standards. If this poll results in Congressional (citizen) approval, the temporary status will be removed and the Code of Laws will be enforced as laws.

The Code of Laws can be viewed in this file: Constitution C, v2.0.

Poll Particulars
This poll will remain open until at least 48 hours have passed AND a quorum of citizens has participated. Poll opening time is 23:55 GMT on July 13. Quorum requirement for this poll is 14 respondents. A 2/3 majority is required for this measure to pass.

Actually, Shaitan, I think a poll of this magnitude should be opened on a Monday and run for 4 days. Have any of the laws' standards been put to the test yet?

i second this point cyc.

I agree with both Cyc and disorganizer. It is quite possible that a quorum will be reached in 48 hours but more votes may be cast if the poll is left open for 4 days or even a week. As written the poll will not stay open that long if a quorum is reached sooner.

Unfortunately the poll is written and the wording was submitted prior to posting. We should have picked up on it in the discussion thread.

The vast bulk of the laws were tested when they were part of the last Constitution. In addition, the Code of Laws discussion sat for close to 2 weeks while I periodically requested feedback, ideas, etc, and only 1 person (chiefpaco) offered anything. The proposed poll was also up for close to a week before this poss was posted. This is quite frustrating to have so much 13th hour speculation after making so many attempts to get this feedback BEFORE the poll was posted. For efficiencies sake it seems like it would be more worthwhile to post polls without discussion.

The points about the poll length likely won't matter. A 2/3 majority is required to pass and this is hitting at 50%.

As a proponent of our new constitution and the spirit of less rules under which it was developed I feel somewhat frustrated myself that there is a movement to keep the old constitution alive in the form of laws and standards.
Should these laws fail to be enacted en masse we can always try passing smaller chunks at a time.

It is my understanding that these are already standards and that falure to enact them into law will not remove their effect as standards. Is this assumption correct?

It is difficult to know what is what as the old constitution is still posted.

Maybe we should put up article by article, with 4 options:
1) LAW
2) STANDARD
3) DELETE
4) ABSTAIN
With this we will get all citizens to read them. (i admit : i did not read them all due to lack of time)

Donsig's idea is a good one. Dis' idea is good after a discussion of each "article" or standard.

!. Sorry, Shaitan, I have been quite busy the last two weeks. I try to keep up, but sometimes its difficult to realize what's being proposed/reviewed/polled at the moment.

2.I'm still waiting for the public to join into the discussions. We need more input from the citizens. I quess I waited a little too long for their input. My fault.

I really do think we should take the first section and post it. Discuss it. "Are there any negative comments about this standard? Or can it be passed on to a law?" Then move on to the next section.

Btw, I am working with (or looking at) the Costitution ver. CV1-10.
The standards are split into 2 catagories - the COL and the COS. If you are refering to the COL being tested during the previous Constitution, how do you explain Section E (I think) about the Judicial Branch? It didn't exist then. If we take each section (the whole section) and discuss its merits and drawbacks, we can then fine tune it and paas it into law. The COS in this version are only standards and will have to wait until all of the Sections in the COL are reviewed. Anyway, this is the way I see it.

I will re-post this statement in the other thread, too.

And how does this relate to the idea of "splitting" our rules in laws and standards? we maybe have to split some of the old rules, as a part (the details) are standards and the other (the general rule) is law.
example:
it should be a law that the chat schedule should be announced beforehand in the forum. but that is is done min 24h before chat and for the next week until sunday are standards detailing the law.

I too am in favour of taking separate votes for each section of the COL. I feel that it would generate more citizen input, since it would not entail reading through pages of material which can be offputting when you have only limited time to devote to the demogame as a whole.

The problem with taking one section at a time is that many are dependent on other sections and do not "fly" by themselves. But, we could always include another section in a discussion if it became apparent that such was necessary.

Cyc - The majority of the laws are from the old Constitution. Some, like the ones detailing the Judicial Branch, are new.

OK, so are you proposing that we start anew as far as the approval process? I can see referencing other sections to support sections currently in review. I know this is a pain in the butt. I know I said I would support your move. I came close to changing my tune last night. But I think this Section by Section process is the best way to establish our laws. Sorry...

No, I'm definitely not advocating that we start anew. I'm advocating that people vote "Yes" in this poll.

If there are any problems in the Code (and none have been pointed out that have not been resolved in the month and a half that this project has been worked on) then those individual items can be dealt with.

This poll has closed with 11 YES, 4 NO and 0 ABSTAIN responses. Quorum is met and the measure has passed.

Happy Birthday Code of Laws

I guess we should read them now.

I'm sorry Shaitan but this was rushed through way too fast. I know you said there was nothing pointed out but I know I raised many points in a pm to you back when we were still trying to enact the constitution. I can't speak for anyone else but after the constitutional debates I wanted a break from lawmaking. I take a break and the whole shebang gets passed.

Now rather than concentrate on the war I feel I should be trying to figure out how to repeal laws that we shouldn't have.