splitting the constitution - how can that work?

[Shaitan]

Retire? I'll have to add a draft provision to the Constitution...

No, there's nothing in there about workers. It wouldn't be too hard to keep track of them. Province A has 5 workers, assign a list of tasks and when one is done the worker that is freed goes to the next task on the list. The Pres/DP could be responsible for idle workers instead of the Domestic Leader.

I think it would encourage governors to build more workers if they had some say in what the workers do once they are built.

 

[eyrei]

I think that should a governor desire to control the workers in his/her province or build workers for a particular purpose, he/she should be free to do so. However, some governors may not desire this level of management, and if workers do not have a purpose designated by a governor, they should be under the control of the designated player. I also oppose giving control of workers to the domestic leader, as, personally, I think I have enough work to do.

Workers can be told to simply improve the area around a city, and then the player will not even have to deal with them until they have completed that task. They can also be told to build a road or rail from one point to another, as the ones being produced in Chondote should be instructed to do once they get to Thebes.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by eyrei
I think that should a governor desire to control the workers in his/her province or build workers for a particular purpose, he/she should be free to do so. However, some governors may not desire this level of management, and if workers do not have a purpose designated by a governor, they should be under the control of the designated player. I also oppose giving control of workers to the domestic leader, as, personally, I think I have enough work to do.

Workers can be told to simply improve the area around a city, and then the player will not even have to deal with them until they have completed that task. They can also be told to build a road or rail from one point to another, as the ones being produced in Chondote should be instructed to do once they get to Thebes.

I cannot imagine being the designated player (DP) and trying to keep track of which workers belong to which province or where one province begins and another ends. I suggest you all try doing this in a solo game and see if you can manage to keep workers tied to provinces. Problems I see also include the idle workers. Could they be moved into another province? If so, would they still *belong* to the original governor or not? What about foreign workers that are not built by any province? Can a governor authorize his or her workers to build a road or railroad into another province?

Traditionally, workers have been under the authority of the DP and that power should be specified in the constitution. What workers actually do would (of course) be subject to the wishes of our citizens. Anyone could petition or poll for certain projects to be done.

Now, what about powers not specifically granted in the constitution?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by donsig


I cannot imagine being the designated player (DP) and trying to keep track of which workers belong to which province or where one province begins and another ends. I suggest you all try doing this in a solo game and see if you can manage to keep workers tied to provinces. Problems I see also include the idle workers. Could they be moved into another province? If so, would they still *belong* to the original governor or not? What about foreign workers that are not built by any province? Can a governor authorize his or her workers to build a road or railroad into another province?

Traditionally, workers have been under the authority of the DP and that power should be specified in the constitution. What workers actually do would (of course) be subject to the wishes of our citizens. Anyone could petition or poll for certain projects to be done.

Now, what about powers not specifically granted in the constitution?

While I agree it would be ridiculous to expect the designated player to keep track of which province a worker belongs to, I think that, at such a point as a worker or group of workers is within a governors province, and do not have an assigned task, he/she should be allowed to post what those workers should do. Then they could be set to that task. If the task is just to improve one or two tiles, the player would have to keep track of them, but if it was to build a road or rail somewhere, or improve all tiles around a city, these instructions can be given and then the next time they are free (having completed their task), the player can do with them as he/she sees fit. Governors are responsible for the micromanagement of their provinces, if we do not allow them some control over workers, they cannot do their job.

 

[Shaitan]

What a conundrum. How do we give the governors some control over the development of their lands without driving the DP into a fit of insanity? A compromise might be for the governors to specify the provincial improvements they want and the DP responsible for the actual implementation. The DP would need to weigh provincial needs against federal needs at times.

Originally posted by donsig
Now, what about powers not specifically granted in the constitution?

We'll need to address them individually as they come up (like the workers here). For powers that haven't been defined I'd say assign them to the Pres/DP until they've been discussed and put where we want them.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
We'll need to address them individually as they come up (like the workers here). For powers that haven't been defined I'd say assign them to the Pres/DP until they've been discussed and put where we want them.

I agree with this but it will take time to hash out these things on an individual basis. While they are being hashed out we must live with our choice (whatever it will be) for this interim authority. Since we don't yet know what issues might pop up this is a big choice we are making.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by eyrei


While I agree it would be ridiculous to expect the designated player to keep track of which province a worker belongs to, I think that, at such a point as a worker or group of workers is within a governors province, and do not have an assigned task, he/she should be allowed to post what those workers should do. ... Governors are responsible for the micromanagement of their provinces, if we do not allow them some control over workers, they cannot do their job.

This is an inefficient way of getting projects done. There could be idle workers near a province but not inside it that could be appropriated by the governor of a province for a less important use. In this case it would be better for the workers to cross provincial borders and work on the higher priority job. There is also the question of jobs the domestic leader neeeds done for wonder building. Then there is the question of building a rail network that really falls under no specified jurisdiction but is certainly national in character. It would be much better IMHO to have authority over the workers centralized. There is nothing to prevent governors or the domestic leader from asking for certain jobs to be done. Any citizen (governors and domestic leader included) could always poll the citizens to get their projects made a high priority.

 

[Cyc]

Shaitan touched on what I believe is the appropriate response to this problem. Let the Governors request work to be done by workers (where ever the workers happen to be or who ever the are). I submitted a request in the turn instruction thread for the worker by Cyrus to stop mining and clear jungle, as Cyrus had no available food. No food, no growth. I could see no reason for the DP to put a worker to mining right next to a city that had no growth. So I made the request. It was ignored and the worker went the other way to build road for the upcoming railway. It should not have been this way. The railway is important, that's why there was already 7 or so workers building rail a short distance away (one of which a city in my province produced for this project).
I suggest we get to work on subjects more important than worker allocation (and I know at this point someone will say "but I'm talking about issues not addressed in the Constitution", but fine, that is what this thread is for. Talk about the issues of the Constitution, not who has the God-given right to direct workers and how difficult it can be. Let it go for now. A simple agreement that the DP has basic control of the workers and must try to answer formal requests in the turn instruction thread by Governors or the Leaders, if possible.
Personally, I was not happy that our Leaders were willing to stunt the growth of the capital city of Kashmir, just to build road.

 

[donsig]

I will reply to this in the Kashmir thread.

I have started a discussion of NEP priorities.

 

[Immortal]

To quote Shaitan directly:

Oh no, my friend. They are very different. Abstain means that they've seen the poll and do not view any choice as worthy. Big difference between abstaining and not voting at all. Plus, the abstain option lets you track the total number of poll participants.

Donsig: I didn't say "waves goodbye to democracy as Donsig throws it out the window" certainly this is not my opinion of you. Rather I think the idea would set a dangerous precident for future presidents to remove power from the citizens, which is the opposite of what both you and I want.

 

[Shaitan]

Donsig's suggestion is workable and is definitely the easiest to implement. I just wish there was a way to reward/encourage governors to take the time and production in building workers.

On a semi-related note, if a governor wants a new city in his province, can he build a settler and put it where he wants it? Or does the settler go to the common cause as they have been previously?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
On a semi-related note, if a governor wants a new city in his province, can he build a settler and put it where he wants it? Or does the settler go to the common cause as they have been previously?

I think the current constitution gives *settler placement* to the domestic leader and traditionally that is who has placed our cities. Of course the domestic leader must bend to the will of the citizens (or face being ejected from office) so a governor could conceiveably commence discussion and then produce a valid and binding poll concerning a specific settler and its location. Another, even simpler solution (one that I think we overlook many times) would be for the governor and domestic leader to come to an agreement about a specific settler and its destination. Of course it would be best if they also had at least some indication that the citizens approve their plan!

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Immortal
Donsig: I didn't say "waves goodbye to democracy as Donsig throws it out the window" certainly this is not my opinion of you. Rather I think the idea would set a dangerous precident for future presidents to remove power from the citizens, which is the opposite of what both you and I want.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the designated player be immune to the will of the citizens. He or she should always bend to the will of the people if it is known. I'm only concerned with those times when our citizen's wishes are not known. In those cases we must know who has the proper (constitutional) authority to make decisions.

 

[Immortal]

I see, thank you for clarifying that

 

[disorganizer]

workers:
i would prefer the governers producing a worker to controll them. if domestic department need one of the provincial workers, the province lends a worker to the department, then for the domestic department uses it and after that gives the worker back to the province.
we could even think about giving money from the budget of domestic department to the province for lenting a worker.

war:
the president normally is the highest military commander.
but another idea:
what about giving the right of play to the military department during war? they could directly controll movement of units when necessary.´
but is this really necessary? is the exact movement of the forces so importand?

 

[Shaitan]

what about giving the right of play to the military department during war? they could directly controll movement of units when necessary.´

The Military Leader tops the Chain of Command when the economy in Mobilized (becomes the default Designated Player). This represents something akin to martial law - the country as a whole is committed to the war effort and civilian concerns are put to the back burner.

but is this really necessary? is the exact movement of the forces so importand?

I don't think that individual troop movement requires the attention of the Military Leader. The DP handles all of the minutiae as directed by every other official, the Mil Leader shouldn't be any different.

 

[donsig]

I like the introduction. It seems as though laws must first be rules and amendments must first be laws. Is this so and is that they way we want it to be?

I would strike the last sentence from the preamble and change the last word of the (new) last sentence from *Phoenatica* to *Phoenatics*.

Article D: I think we are going too far in stripping the constitution here. The areas of authority of the leader and governor positions should be outlined in the constitution. The authority of our officials must be anchored in the constitution. Without a constitutional basis then laws or even standards could be implemented that drastically change the duties of government officials.

Article E: I think we should consider basing terms on number of game turns played rather than the real calender. A term could be (for example) 80 turns long with the election process begining after 60 turns have been played. There is a turn calculator that can be used to easily determine what game year it will be 60 or 80 (or any number of) turns from any given year. Using the turn calculator it would be easy to know at what game year to start elections and the next term.

Article F: Are deputies considered to be in a leadership position? This article is vague but is it too vague? Does *No person shall hold multiple government positions simultaneously.* get the point across better? Or is this article not meant to change our current practice of allowing a person to be a leader and deputy at the same time?

Article G: Is the majority based on the census mentioned in article I? I must confess that I haven't been through all the laws and standards of "C" and thus don't yet understand the workings of the judiciary and legistlative branches. However, I think amendments should need 3/4 majorities of citizens to pass. Polls for amendments could be left open indefinately. I think laws should take a majority of citizens to pass. Standards should be made by government officials. As always these officials should endeavor to determine what it is the citizens want and then implement it but I do not think they should be made to gather a majority just to pass a standard.

Article I: Again, I suggest we consider basing terms on a fixed number of game turns played rather than a calender month. What is the quorum used for?

Articles J & K: No comment yet since I'm not sure of the mechanics of the legislature. Though it does seem to me that the council or cabinet departments are part of the executive branch while the citizens are the legislative branch.

Article N: No one, not even the all powerful moderators should be able to make laws contrary to the constitution. Unity cannot be imposed on the citizenry if they are divided (unless of course one faction is eliminated). Perhaps article N should read *The constitution, laws and standards of Phoenatica can never be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such constitutional amendments, laws or standards* or something along those lines.

Well, now I must go over the code of laws.

 

[Shaitan]

Comments and reply to Donsig's comments (Couldn't quote for clarity as it ended up too many characters. Follow allong as best you can.

Introduction: Yup, that's the plan. This gives a good testing ground for changes and forces reaffirmation of citizen approval as the rules gain more authority.
Preamble: I agree.
Article D: I see what you mean here. The division of the legislature is defined in Article J but specifics were omitted. I'll look into this.
Article E: My concern here is that terms could be very short in the beginning of the game and very long in the middle and end of the game. A world war in the industrial or modern age can make individual turns last for an hour or more.
Article F: "Leader" and "leadership" are used consistently to indicate department leaders and the President. This article is not meant to prevent a person from serving in multiple deputy positions. We'll need a set of definitions to clarify terminology like this.
Article G: Yes, the majority mentioned here is of the census in the next article. I'll reverse the two so the census is defined first. We couldn't keep an amendment poll open indefinitely as there has to be a set time that it closes so the results can be used. Our standards define the common day to day life of the citizens of Phoenatica (how the Forum is used, etc) so I definitely want these to be passed by citizens. Government officials can propose standards too, so items needed for governing effectively are still in the purview of the officials. We've also got an established history of public approval for these. Taking that away would be a bad idea, IMHO.
Articles J & K: This is a problem that actually makes it very difficult to work on the "C". Our Cabinet functions as both the legislature and the real executive branch. That is, the officials make both policies and laws. I have been working on a plan to fix this but it might be pretty unpopular (see next post).
Article N: I agree.

 

[Shaitan]

I propose that we remove the Legislative powers from the Cabinet. Right now, the Cabinet functions as both the executives of the country as well as the legislators. I think that we should have an actual legislative branch. We already have the bodies to fill the positions - our duly elected governors.

This change would do several things. First, it would give us a division between the lawmakers and policy makers. This mimics the setup in every succesful industrialized nation. Second, it evens out the power disparity between our elected officials. Cabinet members have a whole lot o' power, the gov's don't.

In the beginning of the game there would be the 2 citizen proxy votes and the Domestic Leader as the legislature (remember that the Dom Leader is the gov of the capital province). As the nation grows and more provinces are defined, the legislature grows as well.

What thinkest thou?

 

[disorganizer]

1) i did not undersand much of it (maybe cause im ill? or is it just too complicated)
2) the "book of regulations" was meant as detailing the laws. as so, for example, a law could be that the turn chat will be done in a posted schedule and that this schedule has to be posted regularly, and the regulation says that the schedule has to be posted till sunday and a minimum of 24h before the first chat.
as such, propoting arcticles from regulations->law is nonsense. promotion from law-constitution would be good, but should be more restricted, as we dont want to clutter constitution
3) the president decides what to do with a leader? no! citizenry decides.
4) you must destinguish between "citizen census" and "active citizen census" more in the writing. some time you talk of census, some of "active citizen census". please use the second all the time, because the other one is our census of the registered citizens
5) add:
constitution:
* a citizen must register in the registry. all forum users not registered there are no citizens.
law:
* a citizen leaving the game should delete the entries in his post and state there why he left
* citizens should edit their posts in the registry if some of the facts stated there change
6) i would add as first article:
all power of decision in the game should lie withing the powers of citizenry, not within the powers of any individual.