splitting the constitution - how can that work?

[disorganizer]

and another one:
i miss one of the major rules we should implement as one of the first articles:
0) All decisions in the game must be based on the will of citizenry, not on the will of single persons or positions.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
and another one:
i miss one of the major rules we should implement as one of the first articles:
0) All decisions in the game must be based on the will of citizenry, not on the will of single persons or positions.

Article N has that. "Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people."

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
Another point:
ist this too much details for the "book of principles"?
in my belief, this book should contain more general guidelines. we do not want to change it any more (if possible), so its a kind of "citizen rights" or "bill of rights" or something like that.
The detailing will be done in the law-book, like for example the percentages of the votes.
For example:
I: should only read ".. will be filled by elections"
the book of regulations should then define when they are filled and how elections run.

Yup, those are in there because they're considered part of the bedrock of the system. One month terms are something we don't want to change. Of course, it still could be changed but it'll be much more difficult as it's part of the Constitution instead of the Laws or Standards.

The percentages for votes to carry need to be in the Constitution as they have the power to influence the Constitution itself. If they were a Law then a relatively easy change to the law could make changes to the Constitution relatively easy as well.

 

[Cyc]

Well, I'm still trying to piece together a statement. I'm just to busy it seems. The Constitution looks good as a complete document, although I don't think that there's been enough citizen response. Once this thing gets put into effect, it will take an act of congress to change.

Anyway, I know this is out of the blue, but I have been laying back on the Judicial Branch issue to see what everyone else thought of it first. In general it's a good idea. It sets up that 3rd branch for checks and balances. But I feel even though the Judicial Branch would be the proxy votes for the citizenry, we have removed the gateway, or front door, to the Presidency for the citizenry. This is just my personal opinion and I don't have another answer for it other than just adding the Judicial Branch to the existing system. It seems to me people would now have to vote for a corporate lawyer type for the JB instead of voting for an upstanding citizen for councilperson at large.
There were several other issues on the list, but this was my most important one. I just have not been able to keep up with everything.

And I don't mean to hold up your proposal, I just needed to state my opinion.

 

[Shaitan]

Once again, Cyc, your thoughts are similar to my own. I had been contemplating how to open up the Presidencial candidate pool. I do agree that candidates should have proven themselves before being allowed to run for the highest office but why restrict this experience to just the Council? What about making all current leaders eligible? That is, the current President, Department Leaders, Judiciary and Provincial Governors?

 

[Cyc]

That's a very good start. That would allow for 5 more possible candidates, but not at the begining of a new game. And some people would be happy as Governor and not give up the position to run for President. But it's a good start.

 

[disorganizer]

What about all officials? Deputies sometimes do almost as much work as their leader.
Maybe honoured citizens also?

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Cyc
That's a very good start. That would allow for 5 more possible candidates, but not at the begining of a new game. And some people would be happy as Governor and not give up the position to run for President. But it's a good start.

Originally posted by disorganizer
What about all officials? Deputies sometimes do almost as much work as their leader.
Maybe honoured citizens also?

Qualifying deputies would have the advantage of increasing the pool by six from the start of the game. Dis is right too that some of our deputies almost knock themselves out working in their departments. It's also (nominally) an elected position. I would support making deputies eligible.

I guess the most important thing here is that we will be able to deal with the issue Cyc brought up by using one or both of these proposals so the shift from At-Large to Judiciary won't adversely affect the presidential candidacy.

 

[Shaitan]

We also need an adoption plan. If we get the Constitution approved and implement it immediately it will cause some confusion without the laws and standards to actually run the game. Our new Constitution is conceptual and relies on the defining aspects of the Codes.

I propose that we do something along these lines:

• Get the new Constitution approved.
• The new Constitution will go into effect upon approval of the Code of Laws.
• Work on the Code of Laws.
• Get the Code of Laws approved.
• Constitution and Code of Laws are in effect at this time. Old Constitution is retired.
• Work on the Code of Standards.
• Get the Code of Standards approved.
• All 3 books are in effect at this time.

Comments please.

 

[Shaitan]

Another part of the implementation will be to include step over rules. For example, we need to clarify that the Senior At-Large council will become the new Public Defender and the At-Large council will become the Judge Advocate (or vice versa). Or should we have special elections to fill these positions and the At-Large councilors simply vanish? Unlike the At-Large councils, the 2 new positions have very different responsibilities. As Cyc mentioned, it does not necessarily follow that you would want the same person in both positions.

 

[Cyc]

Good. A gradual move to the new Constitution. If an issue gets snagged in one, we can look to the other and propose a poll to send to the citizens.
I also like the idea about deputies that Dis brought up. An extension of your "all officials" idea. Now we've opened up the Presidential race.

 

[Shaitan]

Version 1.4 is uploaded. LINK

In case anybody didn't catch on - anything in blue was changed from the previous version. I've been doing that from the start but just realized that I never mentioned it. You can quickly scan down the document to see what has changed from the last upload.

 

[Shaitan]

The last issue with the Constitution (not the other books) was raised at 13:55 GMT yesterday. In about an hour it'll be a full day without an issue raised. I'm proposing that we go ahead with polling the citizenry for adoption of the new Constitution.

Proposed poll question and options:

Do you approve the adoption and implementation of the new Constitution? (Please read first post before voting.)

• Yes
• No
• Abstain

First post:

Poll goal
This poll is to adopt a new Constitution for Phoenatica. This poll will approve only the new Constitution. The new Code of Laws and new Code of Standards will be developed and polled separately.

Definitions for clarification

• The Articles of the Constitution are the framework of the game. These are the game concepts and ideas, plus the individual rules that must be considered permanent for the game to function. These will be very difficult to change.
• The laws in the Code of Law are the enforceable rules of the game. These are the general rules and regulations that must be followed for the game to function efficiently and allow the participants to enjoy themselves in a community environment. These will be easier to change than articles but are still relatively static.
• The standards in the Code of Standards are the mechanics, procedures and minutiae of the game. Following these standards will allow the game to flow smoothly and greatly reduce clutter and confusion. These will be relatively easy to change.

Discussion Thread
This document was developed over the past month in this thread [Link].

Implementation
If approved, this document will not immediately be in effect. This document will become active when the new Code of Laws is approved.

Poll duration
This poll will last for one week, ending at 00:00 GMT on MMDDYY.

EDIT: Almost forgot - the actual Constitution that is being voted on will be here, at the end of the post.

 

[Shaitan]

In the post following that one I'll list the major changes (such as At-Large being replaced by Judiciary) and give my arguments for why the new Constitution should be approved.

 

[donsig]

I propose we have a discussion thread about the proposed constitution itself before polling. I feel guilty about playing my Civ 2 GOTM last night instead of looking at the constitution.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by donsig
I propose we have a discussion thread about the proposed constitution itself before polling. I feel guilty about playing my Civ 2 GOTM last night instead of looking at the constitution.

I agree. The final draft should be posted at the top of a new thread with a very obvious title. I am guessing many of our citizens stopped reading this thread a while ago, so they may not be aware that this is about to come to a vote.

I also feel guilty, as I was playing Neverwinter Nights instead of reading the constitution last night.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig
I feel guilty about playing my Civ 2 GOTM last night instead of looking at the constitution.

Shame on you.

Originally posted by Eyrei
I also feel guilty, as I was playing Neverwinter Nights instead of reading the constitution last night.

And you as well.

I've started a discussion thread as requested. Hopefully we'll get some more people to pipe up.


Discussion thread for the new Constitution

 

[Eklektikos]

Read through the constitution/laws/standards last night as a bit of light reading before bed... The constitution looks good to me, but I'm not sure about Code Of Laws section A 1 a:

(2) All groups are defined as lobby groups.
(3) No member of a lobby group may hold a government office while a member of that group, as this constitutes a conflict of interest.

I'm not convinced that it really does constitute a conflict of interest in all or even many cases. How does being a member of the Spice Trader's Guild cause a conflict for Chieftess as Trade Secretary? How does being a member of the War Church cause a conflict for President Donsig?
My personal opinion is that a leader will continue to believe in the ideals of the groups he/she was a member of even if they resign their membership. In fact I believe that it's better to know which issues our leaders support via their memberships, so that newcomers can more easily judge what kind of player is in what job.

 

[Shaitan]

The intent of the item is to reduce the possibility that a government official will be able to control a block of votes through their citizen affiliations. Perhaps forbidding membership is a bit much though. After all, every President the US has had was a member of the Freemasons and the majority have been members of the NRA (yup, even the Democrats). How about restricting officials from being the Head of a citizen group?

 

[Eklektikos]

That would be better... But I don't know that even that is really necessary. Citizen group leaders have no real leverage on their members to make them do anything. Perhaps it would be better to just say that citizen group leaders can make members aware of a poll, but not advise them how to vote. What are your thoughts on that?

EDIT: Actually, on second thought, I like Shaitan's suggestion better. Implementing my idea would just lead to confusion and controversy.