DG4 Ruleset Cleanup 1

Throughout the DG4 ruleset (Constitution, Code of Laws, Code of Standards), there are a variety of small changes that need to be made. Many of these have been identified in the Demogame Rules Bugs Report thread.

This is a cleanup thread created to patch the issues raised. Many of these bugs are in sections of law may be revised in a more significant manner. I ask that these changes, the specific change be considered, not a larger issue. I know, it's hard - especially with some topics, but please try. As small as these changes are, we should be able to handle them quickly, and close a small loophole.

Cleanup thread 1 - election bugs

The following bugs have been raised:
1. The term "Election cycle" needs to be explicitly clarified to encompass the entire election cycle, including any run-offs
2. CoS J.1 specifies that Nomination threads and the Nomination Tracker threads should be posted in the Citizens sub-forum. We've been doing all this in the Main Forum which keeps all the election threads neatly (well as neat as they can be) in one place.
3. CoS B.1.k (nominations) conflicts with CoS J.1.a and J.1.e.

For this cleanup, this is all that should be considered.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

Suggested changes:

Bug #1:

New clause -
CoL F.1.b An Election Cycle shall start with the first nomination thread posted, and end when the Election Office posts the official results for all offices.


Bug #2:

Replace J.1.a with -
a. The Election Office shall create one Nomination thread
for each possible Election poll. These threads shall
be in the main forum.

Bug #3:

Replace J.1.c with -
e. The Election Office shall create a Nomination Tracking
thread in the main forum summarizing all
nominations and their status.

-- Ravensfire

2. The Congress (Citizens)
a. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.
b. Provincial borders shall be determined and approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than
approximately 126 tiles

It has come to my attention that people are trying to side step the intention of this Law (as clearly documented in the discusions that supported it). It should read:

2. The Congress (Citizens)
a. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.
b. Provincial borders shall be determined and approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than
approximately 126 Land tiles.

By correcting this, we could clear up any miss understanding about the Law.

Actually, by specifying 126 land tiles, it opens up the possibility that somebody might try to include 126 land tiles plus some coast or sea tiles. That is not explicitly forbidden, therefore you may want to include a clause to forbid it.

Okay, we'll add it to the ruleset bugs list and cover it soon.

-- Ravensfire

I support these suggested changes for elections.

The 126 tile discussion can carry on (in a limited form) in the provincial borders discussion thread, though I sincerely hope there will be more focus on where the borders should be and less on the difference between land and water.

The fix for bug #2 seems good. I'm not sure about #3 since I'm too lazy a citizen to look up the actual conflict. As for #1, well, adding a totally new clause to clarify something is not fixing a bug, it's making a new law. Given our recent electoral problems I am quite hesitant to define an electoral cycle that can go on and on and only be ended by a decree from the Election Office. If you're planning on running this through as a package deal I'd have to vote against the package.

Originally posted by donsig
Given our recent electoral problems I am quite hesitant to define an electoral cycle that can go on and on and only be ended by a decree from the Election Office.

Click to expand...

Well, this is a different twist on the matter. I'm too much of an optimist, assuming that people will tend to do the right thing. The vast majority around here seem to do what is best for the overall game. In fact, the only activity I really have a problem with is the constant arguments over the rules. The people who make an issue of it, especially when no actual harm is being done, are frankly quite annoying.

Suppose you can take two courses of action. One course follows the rules to the letter, but is detrimental to the game. The other course bends a rule here or there, or allows a rule to be bent, but has an enormous positive impact on the game. We should be willing to look the other way, let the game proceed in a positive, fun, and rewarding environment, and fix the rules as a secondary goal.

Back on the topic of this thread, here is an alternative to bugfix 1 which avoids the open endedness, so that the more pessimistic citizens won't get too nervous. Someone is certain to have a problem with the wording -- if you know me you know I'm interested in the effect, not in the words which cause that effect...

Bug #1:

New clause -
CoL F.1.b The Election Cycle shall start when the first nomination thread is posted. The Election Cycle for each office shall end when a decisive result has been obtained. The overall Election Cycle shall end when there are decisive results for all offices. Elected officials assume responsibility for their positions at 00:01 GMT the 1st of the month, or when the Election Cycle for their office ends, whichever is later.

The people who make an issue of it, especially when no actual harm is being done, are frankly quite annoying.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the personal observation, DS. personally, I feel that people who break the laws and therefore cause the discussions about the laws are frankly quite annoying. I definitely think there is one way to stop both annoiances.

Originally posted by Cyc


Thanks for the personal observation, DS. personally, I feel that people who break the laws and therefore cause the discussions about the laws are frankly quite annoying. I definitely think there is one way to stop both annoiances.

Click to expand...

It's a bit of an about face, but on this one I have to agree with donsig -- the best way to reduce both is to have fewer laws.

Originally posted by ravensfire
1. The term "Election cycle" needs to be explicitly clarified to encompass the entire election cycle, including any run-offs

Click to expand...

DaveShack posted this issue, but I don't know/remember what the issue was that creates this problem. Could you explain it to me?

Ravensfire solutions for bug #2 is fine. The solution for #3 is fine except that is should replace J.1.e, not J.1.c as he have listed in his solution.

Are we ready to poll numbers 2 and 3?

I would still like to know why number 1 is needed.

The election cycle business was an issue during the FIRST Judicial election fiasco, zorven. Some people claimed the initial elections were not over, which they were, and a new law that had been ratified before the "Run-off" elections began could not be used mid-election. Because the Law was validated by Congress and put into effect for the Run-off election, it slightened the arguement of some people who wanted certain actions done. They claimed the "TRUE" election wasn't over because there was still a run-off to be had. In saying this, they meant that a new Law couldn't be introduced mid-election. By making the "Election Cycle" officially last from the time Nominations start to the end of any potential Run-off Polls, no new Laws will be introduced to the Election Process mid-election. It's kind of a redundant point now, as the issue was handled by a Mod, but I suppose they feel it still needs to be done.

By changing the term from election to election cycle, this would eliminate a new Law from being introduced into the system mid-election. This may even change the point of Law for the upcoming Judicial Review initiated by donsig (on the FIRST Judicial election).

The Judiciary will conduct a Judicial Review of a Proposed Law of the following proposals:

#2:

Replace J.1.a with -
a. The Election Office shall create one Nomination thread
for each possible Election poll. These threads shall
be in the main forum.

Click to expand...

#3:

Replace J.1.c with -
e. The Election Office shall create a Nomination Tracking
thread in the main forum summarizing all
nominations and their status.

Click to expand...

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by eyrei
This should not be a discussion where anyone takes anything personally.

Click to expand...

I hope you're talking to people who read my post, eyrei. I hope you're not talking to me. What I wrote is not a personal gripe or anything like that. It doen't even come close to all the borderline reprimands you give me (and only me) when a factual discussion ruffles the feathers of one of the Mods.

What I wrote was a factual account of what happened during the first Judicial election. You were there, you saw it.

I waited almost a week to answer zorven's question. No one else would. I retold the events leading up to the initial requests for this change. There is nothing personal about it.

Originally posted by Cyc


I hope you're talking to people who read my post, eyrei. I hope you're not talking to me. What I wrote is not a personal gripe or anything like that. It doen't even come close to all the borderline reprimands you give me (and only me) when a factual discussion ruffles the feathers of one of the Mods.

What I wrote was a factual account of what happened during the first Judicial election. You were there, you saw it.

I waited almost a week to answer zorven's question. No one else would. I retold the events leading up to the initial requests for this change. There is nothing personal about it.

Click to expand...

Moderator Action: If you will recall, moderator warnings and such are not up for public discussion. And yes, I was talking to you, but not only to you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889