Loopholes, Typos, Misplacements, and Errata: Fixing our Three Books

In lieu of recent events, I believe it's a good idea to take a fine toothed comb through our laws to find events and confusing errors. I've taken the liberty of getting started, and suggesting possible solutions. Although the following post will be long, I've barely started this... I'll post what I have so far so that you may discuss, and will post more in the future
~~~~~~~~~
CON.B
Governing rules shall consist of the Articles of the Constitution, the Code of Laws and the Code of Standards. No laws shall be passed that conflict with an article and no standards shall be used that conflict with a law or an article.

CON.G
All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

CoL.H.1-5
((These laws deal with the appointment of positions by the President.))

CoL.H.1-5 clearly contradicts CON.G, which is against the law set by CON.B This means that one of these three laws must be rewritten or repealed.
---

CoL.C.1.E
Casts a tie-breaking vote in Council Votes.

Polls that have no votes in them should not be considered valid, nor eligible for ‘tie-breakers.’
To counter this, I suggest we add a clause adding a minimum number of participants for all polls before it can be considered valid, even spot votes.
---

CoL.C.1.F
Organizes decisions on what to do with Great Leaders.

I suggest we change this to read, “Must initiate polls on what to do with Great Leaders.” Otherwise, the president may make a post that has no/few replies and claim that as their organized decision. Indeed, I believe the term ‘Organize’ is far too loosely defined to be legally binding in our laws. This should be fixed.
---

Definitions, ‘Organize’
Organize – In the context of a leader’s duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player.

As recent events have shown, this seems to be too vague as the definition seems to vary from citizen to citizen. In addition, I believe the term “Organize” should not be used in any law referring to the President. The President is the Designated Player most of the time, and as such, he can’t pass instructions to himself. This seems to be a glaring loophole.
---

CoL.C.1.I
Organizes policy, plans and agendas for departments when these have not been set by a department.

CoL.C.2.D.3-4
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas based on citizen feedback.
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback (forum outage, low participation, etc).

It is entirely possible that in the event of a lack of participation on the part of a Departmental leader, a President can assume control of that entire department. It may even be possible, though unlikely, for a President and Dep’t to work together to achieve this affect. Since a Dep’t leader can NOT post these policies and not be declared ‘absent,’ this can provide the President with large amounts of power.
---

CoL.3.G.1-3
A. Spot Council Vote
1. An Administrative vote called and carried out in the turn chat.
2. Tallied immediately in the turn chat.
3. Simple majority of respondents required to pass the proposed measure.

Rules applying to these Spot Council Votes should be moved so that they are placed under Chat Turn rules. These votes are currently under the Council Votes heading, yet these Spot Council Votes apparently are not applicable to the rules of this heading (Especially CoL.3.G.1-3)

If we do move these votes, I suggest we add more standards applying to these. I strongly suggest adding a minimum vote count to these to prevent abuse.
---

CoL.C.2.D.3-5
3. Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas based on citizen feedback.
4. Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback (forum outage, low participation, etc).
5. Convey these policies, plans and agendas to the President for play in the game.

CoS.J.1-3
1. An official is considered absent from the forum when they have not responded to a required inquiry (Cabinet Vote, request in the official’s department thread) in 36 hours.
A. An official who is absent from the chat turn is not considered absent from the Forum until the Forum absenteeism requirement has been met.
2. An official who has not responded to a required
inquiry in 7 days may be removed from their office
at the President's discretion.
3. An official who is not present on the Forum for 14
consecutive days for any reason may be removed from
office at the President's discretion.
It is possible for a Dep’t Manager to never post Turn Chat instructions and yet still be considered present and have never done anything illegal. This is hurt even more by the fact that a person must be gone 7 or even 14 days before being considered absent.
To fix this, I would propose a Dereliction of Duty clause that will remove a Dep’t Leader from office if they fail to post Turn Chat instructions for two TC’s straight, or three TC’s in any one term. This can be avoided if the Dep’t Leader claims extenuating circumstances and allows their Deputy to post these instructions. This would have the added benefit of encouraging Department Leaders to actually post these instructions.

I haven't had the time enough to read all of it, but a very quick glance at it makes it seem very good.... I trust you enough veera to come up with some good information also.... So I'll see when I have enough time to see if my trust is rightly placed.

Originally posted by Veera Anlai

Governing rules shall consist of the Articles of the Constitution, the Code of Laws and the Code of Standards. No laws shall be passed that conflict with an article and no standards shall be used that conflict with a law or an article.

CON.G
All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

CoL.H.1-5
((These laws deal with the appointment of positions by the President.))

CoL.H.1-5 clearly contradicts CON.G, which is against the law set by CON.B This means that one of these three laws must be rewritten or repealed.

Click to expand...

You had better read the Judicial Log. This is where all Judicial reviews, meant to clarify our rules, are kept. We have already have on that futher defines this subject. LINK.
If was decided that article G only said that we will have elections each month.
---

CoL.C.1.E
Casts a tie-breaking vote in Council Votes.

Polls that have no votes in them should not be considered valid, nor eligible for ‘tie-breakers.’
To counter this, I suggest we add a clause adding a minimum number of participants for all polls before it can be considered valid, even spot votes.[/b]

Click to expand...

Have to agree with you here. Perhaps add something that requires a minimum one vote.

---

CoL.C.1.F
Organizes decisions on what to do with Great Leaders.

I suggest we change this to read, “Must initiate polls on what to do with Great Leaders.” Otherwise, the president may make a post that has no/few replies and claim that as their organized decision. Indeed, I believe the term ‘Organize’ is far too loosely defined to be legally binding in our laws. This should be fixed.
---

Definitions, ‘Organize’
Organize – In the context of a leader’s duties, this includes suggesting a plan, discussing it and passing instructions on to the Designated Player.

As recent events have shown, this seems to be too vague as the definition seems to vary from citizen to citizen. In addition, I believe the term “Organize” should not be used in any law referring to the President. The President is the Designated Player most of the time, and as such, he can’t pass instructions to himself. This seems to be a glaring loophole.

Click to expand...

There is no loophole here. All this does is allow decisions to be made based on poles and the general concensus from discussion.
---

CoL.C.1.I
Organizes policy, plans and agendas for departments when these have not been set by a department.

CoL.C.2.D.3-4
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas based on citizen feedback.
Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback (forum outage, low participation, etc).

It is entirely possible that in the event of a lack of participation on the part of a Departmental leader, a President can assume control of that entire department. It may even be possible, though unlikely, for a President and Dep’t to work together to achieve this affect. Since a Dep’t leader can NOT post these policies and not be declared ‘absent,’ this can provide the President with large amounts of power.

Click to expand...

There are few instances were we are completely without a leader. Besides, if we are without one, there is a deputy and chat rep to back him up. Even without these, the president will almost always be in the process of appointing a new leader. In the absence of a leader, there needs to be someone in control.
---

CoL.3.G.1-3
A. Spot Council Vote
1. An Administrative vote called and carried out in the turn chat.
2. Tallied immediately in the turn chat.
3. Simple majority of respondents required to pass the proposed measure.

Rules applying to these Spot Council Votes should be moved so that they are placed under Chat Turn rules. These votes are currently under the Council Votes heading, yet these Spot Council Votes apparently are not applicable to the rules of this heading (Especially CoL.3.G.1-3)

If we do move these votes, I suggest we add more standards applying to these. I strongly suggest adding a minimum vote count to these to prevent abuse.

Click to expand...

Spot votes are often needed to make on-the-fly decisions. During various wars last DG, they were important in making sure that a chat didn't grind to a halt after one turn. My only recommendation here would be to enforce a minimum of one vote so the decision isn't made by a single person.
---

CoL.C.2.D.3-5
3. Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas based on citizen feedback.
4. Formulate departmental policies, plans and agendas of their own in the absence of citizen feedback (forum outage, low participation, etc).
5. Convey these policies, plans and agendas to the President for play in the game.

CoS.J.1-3
1. An official is considered absent from the forum when they have not responded to a required inquiry (Cabinet Vote, request in the official’s department thread) in 36 hours.
A. An official who is absent from the chat turn is not considered absent from the Forum until the Forum absenteeism requirement has been met.
2. An official who has not responded to a required
inquiry in 7 days may be removed from their office
at the President's discretion.
3. An official who is not present on the Forum for 14
consecutive days for any reason may be removed from
office at the President's discretion.
It is possible for a Dep’t Manager to never post Turn Chat instructions and yet still be considered present and have never done anything illegal. This is hurt even more by the fact that a person must be gone 7 or even 14 days before being considered absent.
To fix this, I would propose a Dereliction of Duty clause that will remove a Dep’t Leader from office if they fail to post Turn Chat instructions for two TC’s straight, or three TC’s in any one term. This can be avoided if the Dep’t Leader claims extenuating circumstances and allows their Deputy to post these instructions. This would have the added benefit of encouraging Department Leaders to actually post these instructions.

Click to expand...

Deputies. This is the reason we have deputies. In the event there are no instrctions, the coucil vote is there to override that lack of said instructions.

Quoting Veera:
I suggest we change this to read, “Must initiate polls on what to do with Great Leaders.” Otherwise, the president may make a post that has no/few replies and claim that as their organized decision. Indeed, I believe the term ‘Organize’ is far too loosely defined to be legally binding in our laws. This should be fixed.

I think it can be changed better to adding to the defenation of organize something like:

Posting discussions and polls and advertising to get proper citizen input.

This might save us some trouble.

You had better read the Judicial Log. This is where all Judicial reviews, meant to clarify our rules, are kept. We have already have on that futher defines this subject. LINK.
If was decided that article G only said that we will have elections each month.

Click to expand...

Well then, it's still a typo that needs to be changed so as not to confuse new players. Having a law that *clearly* says "All elections must be filled via elections" and saying it doesn't *really* mean that isn't proper. I'm sure a simple wording change would clarify it, rather than forcing them to dig through a log needlessly.

There is no loophole here. All this does is allow decisions to be made based on poles and the general concensus from discussion.

Click to expand...

But what about when polls are obsolete? Or when discussions is minimal due to forum problems? This is what happened last time. I believe a more reliable method should be used, and a more reliable term. The term "Organize" as is doesn't even require a poll, nor does it set any limits on the discussion. Theoretically, a leader could set an unofficial poll and discussion ten minutes before the TC, then use those results to make their decision.
Unlikely, yes, but I'm trying to close as many loopholes as I can here.

Spot votes are often needed to make on-the-fly decisions. During various wars last DG, they were important in making sure that a chat didn't grind to a halt after one turn. My only recommendation here would be to enforce a minimum of one vote so the decision isn't made by a single person.

Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly agree with that statement Octavian. I think you misunderstand my intent ;-)
Currently, our laws of Council Votes require 2/3 of the Council to be present if it is to be declared valid. Spot Council Votes are considered Council Votes, yet seem to be immune to this law. This should be changed in clarified.
I suggested we add the minimum vote since the 2/3 Council Presence rule apparently doesn't apply to this Spot Council Vote. Personally, I would say 3 Council Members, instead of 1...

Deputies. This is the reason we have deputies. In the event there are no instrctions, the coucil vote is there to override that lack of said instructions.

Click to expand...

I know we have deputies, yet how often do they post in place of our Department Leaders?
And that Council Vote? Judging by what I saw in our last TC, Council Votes are a joke. 0-0? Again, I'm just trying to close loopholes like that one...

I'll have to return to look through all of Veera's notes as I don't have time at the moment. Three quick things I'd like to note though:

#1. We don't require polls because polls aren't always necessary. For example, we have never had a poll on worker usage. It's not a topic that most citizens care enough to even comment on and nobody has ever expressed interest in a poll. Also, when a discussion is well represented but very one sided on an opinion, a poll is not necessary. The people can state their will in discussions as well as polls. Polls are really only needed to cover up poor discussion or when there is no clear cut consensus in the discussion. Also when there's no time for discussion, of course (quick poll).

#2. The president isn't always the DP (as will happen later today) so the working that specifies that the Pres is responsible for passing instructions to the DP is just as applicable as with any leader.

#3. Veera's suggestion to rework some confusing rules should not be discounted simply because there are clarifying entries in the Judicial Log. The Log was intended as a stop-gap measure so gameplay could continue after resolving confusing rules. It wasn't meant to be a deterent to making them clear. In fact the Log is a good place to look for where things need to be changed for clarity.

Shaitan - do me a favor, when you're replying to the items listed above, please quote or state which point your reply is addressed to. Being specific on the rules helps a lot.

Veera - all good points. Believe me, I and a few others have been over the Constitution with a fine tooth comb. In its refinement, the act of changing the wording to accomplish one goal can trigger a complaint with another camp that will request rewording of two other laws, that means that your rewording is pointless. Constantly putting out fires because of word changes gets old after a while. But I understand where you are coming from. Case in point - the word "organize". It is a yuppie "catch-all" phrase that looks really suspicious, but actually helps in the long run. I didn't like the word in the begining myself. I'd put in many long hours as a Government official and knew the ropes, so I was cautious about keeping it in the 3 books. But when I returned to office, I found that term "organize" (in its true definition here in our books) to be very helpful, in that sometimes you have to do everything yourself. I mean this in regards to low citizen input, polls dying off, leaders bailing, etc. Sometimes you need to organize the information in a logical grouping and make a decision based on this, otherwise you are left stranded, without direction from the masses.

As Octavian states, some of our problems have been smoothed over in order to let the game progress. And we should go back through the 3 books and glean the truely good stuff from the very confusing and arguementitive stuff. Have at it. You have my support. Don't let the poofy wigs get you down.