Proposed new Code of Laws

Bootstoots

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 2, 2003
Messages
9,426
Location
Mid-Illinois
I have written up a new CoL for Fanatica. It is only about a third of the length of the old one (in DG2) and should help to clarify constitutional problems that have arisen. It also incorporates much of the DG2 Code of Standards. Please post suggestions and general discussion on it. Discussion will be open for at least 48-72 hours, and it will be subjected to Judicial Review.

@Peri - I decided not to use a sponsor...the CoL is too large for a PM and it would be obvious who proposed it in the first place.

Here is the proposal:
Code:
A. Departmental Deputies
	1. Each Executive department and each governor will have a 
deputy.  This deputy will take over temporarily for a leader during 
a leave of absence and will gain control of the office if the leader
permanently vacates the office.
		a. The deputy of the President is the Vice President.
	2. The deputy for a position will be the candidate that placed
second in the most recent elections for that position.  In the event 
that there is no second place candidate, the Department Leader may 
call a special election for that position.
	3. If a deputy is absent, the candidate who placed third in 
the most recent elections will temporarily take over as deputy and may
become the new permanent deputy if a deputy permanently vacates the 
office.
	4. All department leaders and governors reserve the right to 
create unofficial offices (such as Mayors, History officers, Chat 
Representatives, etc) and appoint citizens to these offices.
B. Judicial Matters
	1. Judicial Review
		a. Any citizen may call judicial review 
whenever a question of rule interpretation arises.
		b. The Judge Advocate may also call review to dismiss
Public Investigation charges.
		c. Judicial Review is binding if 2 of 3 Judiciary members
agree with the review, except in dismissal of Public Investigations, 
which require unanimous consent among the Judiciary.
	2. Public Investigations
		a. A Public Investigation may be requested by post in
the Judicial thread and/or a PM to the Judge Advocate. An accuser may
wish to remain anonymous, and the JA must honor this if the accuser 
indicates this in the accusation PM.
		b. The accuser must post which amendments or laws were
broken by this person.
		c. The Judge Advocate must notify the Public Defender 
of the charges so that a defense can be formulated.
		d. If the Judge Advocate does not believe that the 
charge has merit, he/she may move to dismiss the charges.  If the
 charges are found, either by the JA or by review, to have merit, 
the Judge Advocate must start a PI discussion thread.
		e. The discussion thread must be open for at least 48
hours.  The Public Defender and the defendant have 24 hours to make the
first two replies, which are reserved for them. If they fail to do so,
anybody may post.  The defendant also has the chance to plead guilty,
which will cause the trial poll phase of the PI to be skipped.
		f. If the defendant did not plead guilty, the JA must
post a trial poll after closing the discussion thread. This poll must
be open for 48 hours and must have the options of Guilty, Innocent, and
Abstain. If the defendant if found guilty, the JA posts a sentencing poll.
		g. The sentencing poll will be up for 48 hours and will be 
		in multiple choice format. It will 
		contain the following options:
			1. Eviction from the Demo game
				a. For previous offenders only 
			2. Suspension from the Demo game 
			3. Impeachment 
				a. For officials only. 
			4. Final warning 
				a. For previous offenders only. 
			5. Warning 
			6. Abstain 
			7. If the offender has previously received a 
			Final Warning, the options of Warning and Final 
			Warning will not be offered on the sentencing poll. 
			8. If the offender has never received a Warning, 
			the option of Final Warning will not be offered 
			on the sentencing poll
 			9. A Moderator will set the length of time for
			suspensions after conferring with the JA.  Moderators
			will also be responsible for enforcing evictions
			and suspensions.
C. Absenteeism 
	1. An official is considered absent if they have had no forum 
activity for 72 hours, if they have not responded to a required inquiry
in 36 hours, or if they have posted absence in the official absence
thread.
	2. The President may expel an official from office if
he/she has not responded to a required inquiry in 7 days, or if he/she
has recorded no forum activity for 14 days for any reason.
	3. An official is absent from a turnchat if they are not present in
the demogame chat room while a turnchat is occurring
D. Chain of Command
	1. The chain of command will determine who is the designated player
at a turnchat if the President is not available to play the game. It will
also determine naming rights for cities.  In positions where the there are
more than one person eligible to name a city or be designated player at a
turnchat, the issue will be resolved by seniority as a citizen (who signed
the citizen registry first).
		a. No citizen will be eligible to name a second city until
all citizens who wish to name a city have done so.
	2. CoC
		A. President 
		B. Vice President 
		C. Domestic Leader 
		D. Military Leader 
		E. Foreign Leader 
		F. Science Leader 
		G. Culture Leader
		H. Trade Leader
		I. Chief Justice 
		J. Judge Advocate
		K. Public Defender 
		L. Governors
		M. Domestic Deputy 
		N. Military Deputy 
		O. Foreign Deputy 
		P. Science Deputy 
		Q. Culture Deputy 
		R. Trade Deputy 
		S. Governor Deputies
		T. Previously Elected Officials (in order of the CoC, 
		for city naming rights only)
		U. Remaining Citizenry
E. Code of Laws Amendments
	1. Amendments to the Code of Laws must receive the vote of a 
plurality of the citizenry that choose to vote and the vote of a majority
of the full Senate before they take effect.  
	2. A Code of Laws amendment may also pass by receiving supermajority 
(two-thirds of all votes, excluding abstentions) support by the citizenry.  
If this happens, the Senate poll is skipped and the amendment goes into 
effect immediately.
	3. A CoL amendment citizen poll must be open for at least 48 
hours for the amendment to take effect.
	4. This Code of Laws will be in effect when it is approved by the
same method prescribed for an amendment.
 
I support section A though I've only looked at it quickly and may have minor suggestions down the road.

I do not support section B. The public investigation section needs much work in my opinion. It does not even mention the CJ's role!

I am definately against section C. The president should not have the power to remove elected officials from office. I also think the section is not needed. If a leader is derelict in his duty then let the citizens impeach him to remove him from office. As for absecnes, we have deputies in place and methods for dealing with times when both the leader and deputy disappears.

Section D seems ok, as does section E.

If I had to vote on accepting this whole package, I would vote no. I think we would be better off building the CoL a little at a time. I suggest starting with section E then section A while we debate and refine the otrher sections.
 
Hehe. I knew as soon as I ran for a cabinet position someone would crank up the PI machine in our new "less laws" game. :)

I agree that we should should be doing the CoL a little at a time. This way each section would be receiving the attention that it needs. No reason to rush through everything at once. There were parts throughout that large document that I though needed refining also.
 
@donsig - About Section B, I was trying to make sure that it didn't already cover things addressed by the constitution, to avoid unnecessary legislation. The constitution already says that the CJ is responsible for the mechanics of a trial. If you would like to suggest something to clarify the CJ's role, I invite you to do so while it is still in the discussion phase.

Regarding Section C, I will strike subsection C.2, relating to absence expulsion, from my proposal if that's okay with everybody else.

@Cyc and donsig, regarding slow additions to the CoL- We tried doing this a month or two ago under Shaitan, and nothing was approved. I think it is best done all at once, with a framework such as this, and suggestions can be taken while it is being discussed.
 
I still disagree bootstoots. We can't be throwing up a document such a CoL and then be slashing sections out of it left and right because you want to get it implemented in a hurry. This is not a game breaking issue. We should do as the President has suggested and work on it a piece at a time. The original intent of the existing Constitution was to limit the amount of laws in the game and only bring forth new legislation when a particular law was needed to iron out a deep wrinkle in the game.

We have not had an absentee problem yet (with the exception of curu's), we've only had 1 PI attempt (by CT) that was immediately dismissed (which was probably a last ditch effort to raise some hell before she quit), and the COC has gone fine for two Terms with minor discussion.

Deputies has been our major problem area. Let's shelve this proposal and work on the exact wording of the Deputy Section. Once we get that squared away and voted on, we can move on the the next Section that requires a CoL amendment.
 
Ok, I'll cave to that. Let's set up section E for immediate ratification and work on the wording of section A. Once section A is passed, we will start working on B, C, and D. We can use the first post as a framework, and tweak it to our liking. Sound good?

BTW, Cyc, why do you seem to dislike Chieftess, and it seems, by association, her supporters (of which I have been labeled a part)?
 
To answer your question about CT, boots, my relationship with CT goes back some 15 months, so you being a relative newbie would have to do a lot of reading to understand the bulk of it.

In regards to Section E., that's one of the Sections I didn't agree with. You have put in words that say, and I quote:

1. Amendments to the Code of Laws must receive the vote of a
plurality of the citizenry that choose to vote and the vote of a majority of the full Senate before they take effect.
________________________________________

Basically, what this says is that if three people vote and two of them vote to approve the amendment, then it is passed on to the Senate for the rubber stamp there. I don't like this and feel there should be some kind of quorum.

Also:
2. A Code of Laws amendment may also pass by receiving supermajority (two-thirds of all votes, excluding abstentions) support by the citizenry. If this happens, the Senate poll is skipped and the amendment goes into effect immediately.
___________________________________

Excluding abstentions is not recognizing a super-majority. A Super-majority is 2/3's of the people who vote. I feel this wording should be changed.

Also:
4. This Code of Laws will be in effect when it is approved by the
same method prescribed for an amendment.
_______________________________________

This should not be part of our CoL. It is just a statement that would accompany the proposal. It should not be a law.
 
Ok, I will make corrections:
1. A quorum can be added that would be 1/3 of the highest vote total in the most recent full elections
2. This can be changed to superplurality.
4. I can take this out of Article E.

Does this satisfy you?

EDIT: Clarified point 1.
 
So now we are back to the point of deciding what a good quorum is. How do you define 'active citizenry' bootstoots?
 
So, to use our most recent elections for your verbage for #1, we would need 8 people to vote yes. Total votes for the Presidential election was 42. Multiply that by .333 and you get 13.99 (or 14). So 14 votes would be quorum and 8 affirmative votes would pass the amendment to the Senate. Is this correct?
 
Cyc, yes, that is correct, assuming nobody abstained. Abstentions may lower the number of yes votes necessary slightly. If this looks ok with you, I will codify the changes to this.
 
OK, boots - put some verbage in there stating that the .5 mark determines whether to round up or down, code it up, and let's see what anyone else thinks, including donsig. If there are no problems, it can be your proposed poll.
 
Here is the altered proposal:
Code:
 E. Code of Laws Amendments
	1. Amendments to the Code of Laws must receive the vote of a 
plurality of the citizenry that choose to vote and the vote of a majority
of the full Senate before they take effect.  The quorum for a citizen poll is
1/3 of the citizens who voted in the most active poll in the most recent full elections.
		a. If the number of votes divided by 3 is a decimal, it is 
rounded up if the decimal is above .5 and down if it is .5 or smaller.
	2. A Code of Laws amendment may also pass by receiving superplurality 
(double the votes for Yes than in any other option) support by the citizenry.  
If this happens, the Senate poll is skipped and the amendment goes into 
effect immediately.
	3. A CoL amendment citizen poll must be open for at least 48 
hours for the amendment to take effect.
 
By rounding, I meant in case the number for the quorum didn't come out to be a whole number. Such as 13.56 or something like that. Then .5 and above would round up .4 and below would round down. :)
 
I've just only skimmed through to proposal, and it looks good.
For the CoC, I would add something that would use the CoC for settling disputes amongst leaders (IE, if FA said one thing, and Trade said another, FA would get precedence for being higher up).
For PIs, there was a proposal I made in DG2 that was well liked, but never passed since it only came up near the end of the game. See it here.
 
We're only working on Section E. at the moment, Octavian. So I guess that Section looks good to you? I still like to get some more input from the citizens.
 
I think we scoured this pretty well. All the glaring holes and issues have been fixed. I know there is a bit of complaint about the poll that has just appeared, but I really dont think there is anything major to fix.

As it stands, we have gone through a couple of drafts, dropped sections, added sections, rewritten/reworded sections, and I think that there isn't any more to discuss.
 
Back
Top Bottom