Setting up the Code of Laws

These two proposed rules will form the foundation of the Code of Laws:

A) The Code of Laws exists as the second tier of rules. No set of rules shall exist between this Code of Laws and the Constitution. No lower set of rules shall conflict with this Code of Laws.

B) Alteration and addition to the Code of Laws shall require a poll of the populace. Said poll must achieve a supermajority for adoption. Specifically, the votes for a change must be double the votes opposed to change, with abstentions excepted.

Those two would be the obvious ones.

I was reading through the old code of laws, and as a newbie it seems that most of that can be dumped providing we all exercise restraint, courtesy and common sense. A lot of it seems to be accepted practice like Section A.
So perhaps the new laws should only stipulate what is absolutley vital to the smooth functioning of the game. The drafting of laws to regulate other areas is unneccessary.
I am very much in favour of building our laws as we progress starting off with only what we need right now. We should only create new laws if there is a clear case for doing so at that time not because we perceive that it may be neccessary at a future point in the game.

I think that the CoL should be approved by a vote of the majority of the populace and a majority of the Senate, rather than a two-thirds vote of the populace. We should also elect at-large senators to fill up as many seats in the Senate as we would need to get three senators (so that there would be no senator with veto power).

What I like about the above guidelines is that they will help to keep the size of the code down to reasonable levels, and also control the enactment of frivolous laws.

Originally posted by Peri
I was reading through the old code of laws, and as a newbie it seems that most of that can be dumped providing we all exercise restraint, courtesy and common sense. A lot of it seems to be accepted practice like Section A.
So perhaps the new laws should only stipulate what is absolutley vital to the smooth functioning of the game. The drafting of laws to regulate other areas is unneccessary.
I am very much in favour of building our laws as we progress starting off with only what we need right now. We should only create new laws if there is a clear case for doing so at that time not because we perceive that it may be neccessary at a future point in the game.

Click to expand...

We tried this last game, and the one before. Restraint, courtesy and common sense were not shown, and we ended up with a rule set that did more damage than good.

On another topic, I would like to stipulate, once and for all, that any rules made beyond the constitution apply only to this demogame. Once we are done with this game and start another one, these rules will be null and void.

Originally posted by eyrei




On another topic, I would like to stipulate, once and for all, that any rules made beyond the constitution apply only to this demogame. Once we are done with this game and start another one, these rules will be null and void.

Click to expand...

That's probably for the best. Since we can start over we can improve on what has happened before.

Honestly, I don't think it necessary to tack on another document to our governing laws. We just need one document, the constituion, but perhaps organized in the manner that the old CoL was.

Originally posted by eyrei


We tried this last game, and the one before. Restraint, courtesy and common sense were not shown, and we ended up with a rule set that did more damage than good.

Click to expand...

So how do we get round the problem for this game? Like many I dont want to see laws for all occasions but at the same time sharp practices will ruin the fun.

Since I am very keen on having as many people as possible participate, I have a couple of proposals regarding offcial elections.
From what I can see so far Person X can stand and be elected for the same post for the entire duration of the game.
I would like to propose that a candidate cannot hold the the same office for two consecutive terms.
Also that a person cannot hold more than one elected office at once with the exception of the Presidency and the VP.
Also that if a person is elected to a Leader position, that person cannot hold any deputy leaderships for his term in office.
Finally, that holding multiple Deputy positions is prohibited with the exception of the Vice Presidency.
We have 86 members and it would be good if there was a better than fair chance that most of them could hold an elected position at some point in the game.

I would appreciate any feedback.

From Octavian
Honestly, I don't think it necessary to tack on another document to our governing laws. We just need one document, the constituion, but perhaps organized in the manner that the old CoL was.

Click to expand...

I see your point but I disagree. I think that the base framework, concepts and intentions should be separate and in the Constitution and rules of lesser import should be separate. I don't see a reason for the three books like we used to have but I do support a lower tier of laws.

As Peri has started discussion on particular rules, I suppose it's time that I got off my butt and handled the proposal I started.

There weren't many specific options presented. Essentially it boils down to what is required to pass a law. Should it be a supermajority of citizens (The Congress) or a simple majority of citizens plus a simple majority of governors (The Senate)? I'll poll this element tomorrow.

@Peri - Personally I think those are generally good ideas and would allow more people with less demogame clout to get involved in the government.

i would at least like to see a Bill of Rights type of document, just so we can make amedments to the constitution later on. Throughout history its been proven that a nation cannot survive on a constitution alone, some sort of bill of rights always came along.

Some seem to manage without any constitution at all...

But back on topic, what exactly is the difference between a bill of rights type document and a constitution? To call my knowledge of such matters "hazy" would be an understatement

The Bill of Rights is a group of amendments to the Constitution, not a separate document. Our Constitution is already set up to allow ammendments whenever needed so we should be set there.

Is there anything not working right now that needs additional laws?

Discussion has started regarding regulating elected positions so all of us "old boys" give the newer players a chance.

Originally posted by Shaitan
The Bill of Rights is a group of amendments to the Constitution, not a separate document. Our Constitution is already set up to allow ammendments whenever needed so we should be set there.

Click to expand...

But a Bill of Rights is only needed if those rights are not already guaranteed in the constitution.

I agree with Shaitan's earlier statement that the first order of business for the lower tier of laws is to decide what it will take to pass a law. I look forward to the poll on this matter.

The informational poll for which method to use for approval requirements in law polls has been posted here.

We still should discuss the use of quorums for passing laws. I support the use of quorums as they will ensure broad citizen participation in lawmaking. I think quorum should be one-quarter to one third of the Congress.

Approval requirements came in extremely close and I am supporting donsig's idea to combine the two. Essentially the citizenry gets polled. If the return is a supermajority that is all that is needed. If not even a majority of the citizens approve it is dead at that point. If a simple majority of approval is received then it goes to the Senate for the final decision. The Senate would then pass it with a majority of approval or the bill would die there. If anybody dislikes this combination of methods please speak up, otherwise we'll go with it for the final proposal.

Regarding quorums...there are a couple of options here.

First is the simplest - no quorums. This has the advantage of allowing passage of bills based on active support rather than passive. The people who care about the proposed rule (either for or against) are involved and there is no requirement to campaign for support. It has a disadvantage where unscrupulous lawmakers could sneak things in with minimum participation or notice. One way to remove the disadvantage here would be to put a minimum time limit on. The downside of that is it's adding a requirement solely to rectify the absence of another. It also makes speedy passage difficult.

The second method would be to throw out those approval systems noted above and make COL changes require a majority of the Active Census. This isn't a quorum per se but it creates a defacto quorum of >50% of the active census.

A third method would be to simply use a quorum. What do we use for that quorum? 1/2 of the full census? 1/2 of the active census?

Please comment on these methods and suggest any others that come to mind. donsig has suggested 1/3 to 1/2 of the Congress (full census).

EDIT: Just for clarity & example, Congress (full census) is equal to the highest amount of participation in the current term's elections. Active census is equal to the average of participation in all of the elections of the current term. The current full census is 62 and the current active census is 46.