A Flexible Government?

[Octavian X]

The top post of this page has been editted to reflect some of Blkbrd's and Black_Hole's suggestions. I agree that some of definitions may be tightened, but the document is very long as it is. An admirable goal, I think, would be to cut a few hundred words from the docuement.

A few other questions for thought...

Should we allow an Executive Officer to remove his Deputy?
Is the Freedom of Information bit really complete?

And, of course, any and all proofreading is appreciated. The 'Defense' Ministry, for example, was renamed 'Military Affairs.' If I missed any references that needed to be changed, please tell me!

 

[ravensfire]

Should we allow an Executive Officer to remove his Deputy?

Yes

Is the Freedom of Information bit really complete?

Perhaps there's a better way to more accurately reflect what people do and prevent nuisance judicial requests. It may be a bit longer, maybe replace the last sentence with "This thread will contain update basic information about the office and other information as requested by citizens."

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

In that case, I've just detected another unclear issue which may cause judical dispute: Are members of the Judiciary Branch "officials"?

By tradition I consider the Judicary members as officals of the Judicary Branch of the Government.

 

[DaveShack]

Oct's proposal seems to be missing the same thing we were missing in DG7. How is the President position filled when vacant?

 

[Octavian X]

Oct's proposal seems to be missing the same thing we were missing in DG7. How is the President position filled when vacant?

Good question. How about an appointment made by the Judiciary? It would be the remaining impartial body in the event of Presidential absence, and would be the body least likely to have absent members.

We could also try a special election, though it'd be a headache to impleament into the CoL proposal as it now stands.

Lastly, this reminds me that the President should probably be the person in charge of filling an office if no candidates ran for it during the election...

 

[Blkbird]

Good question. How about an appointment made by the Judiciary? It would be the remaining impartial body in the event of Presidential absence, and would be the body least likely to have absent members.

How about an appointment by the Judiciary, whereas the candidate is limited to the three primary Ministers (Domestic, Foreign, Military)? In other words, let the Justices vote to pick one of the three as acting President.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Why should it be limited to one of the 3 structured ministers? Everyone can be eligible as well as them - let's just appoint someone as President, not 'acting' President; we can actually fill the position.

 

[Blkbird]

I've set up a poll regarding the election period issue:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=154120

 

[Octavian X]

One more question is necessary before we move for submitting the proposal as an amendment to the Code of Laws. What about impleamentation? Do we add a rider mandating that the Flexible government wait until the new term for impleamentation, or do we move for immeadiate impleamentation and simply move Triumvirate officers into the new Executive Offices?

 

[ravensfire]

I would suggest that the new CoL take effect in Term 2, and that all election be with the new positions.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

It should take affect after the first full month Triumvirate term.

 

[DaveShack]

It is now early AM the 17th, GMT. To change the CoL prior to elections, we would need a 1 day mock poll period assuming no substantial comments, a JR which could take up to a day depending on what time the request comes in and when the Justices are online, followed by a 4 day poll. This means the earliest it can be posted as the new CoL is 5 days from now, and more likely 6 days. Elections start 8 days before the end of month, on the 23rd.

My opinion as a citizen is that we're better off not rushing it, and aiming for term 3. If there are totally unworkable aspects of the existing CoL, then someone outside the Judiciary should initiate actions to change them. It wouldn't be possible to change the offices, but there is no reason other things like how vacancies are filled, which decisions require an assembly vote, etc. can't be fixed.

 

[Swissempire]

that is what i was trying to suggest in less words.

Though i feel as citiziens we are better waiting for demogame 2 to implement the Flex. Or just admit that the current tri is Flex under a different name

 

[Blkbird]

My opinion as a citizen is that we're better off not rushing it, and aiming for term 3. If there are totally unworkable aspects of the existing CoL, then someone outside the Judiciary should initiate actions to change them. It wouldn't be possible to change the offices, but there is no reason other things like how vacancies are filled, which decisions require an assembly vote, etc. can't be fixed.

I second that. The current draft still leaves many things open. Compared to our current CoL, my impression is that this draft is clearly not yet ready for ratification.

 

[ravensfire]

that is what i was trying to suggest in less words.

Though i feel as citiziens we are better waiting for demogame 2 to implement the Flex. Or just admit that the current tri is Flex under a different name

Now THAT it's certainly not. The sheer complexity of the Tri system is missing (thankfully!) from this.

For the pace - let's just allow the proposal to dictate the pace. If it will make it in time for Term 2 - cool. If it won't, oh well - Term 3 then.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

The discussion on the content of the Flex draft is dying out, I'm not sure if this is a sign that we are roughly done with the draft (my personal impression is that we're not), but in any case here is something we must do before finishing the draft: a "comparision analysis".

We need to take our current CoL, go from one sentence to the next, see what issue each of them address, and find the equivalent in the new draft. Some things are handled similarly in both versions, some not such much - in that case we need to write it down. When we propose a complete switch of CoL to the cititzenery, we have the obligation to present them a list of major changes in the law.

Also, many regulations in the current CoL will be found missing in the new one - we do emphasize on having a significantly slimmer CoL, after all. For those issues we need to make sure they are handled well *implicitly* by the new CoL, or, in case an issue is likely to be disputed, add explicit clauses to the draft to prevent such disputes. I have a feeling we'll be finding many such "blind spots" in our draft.

This comparison analysis need to be done independently by at least two, three people. I myself am quite busy right now, with my duties as the Minister of Science, plus I'm already spending too much time on the Demogame as it is. So if some of you like to start now, please do. I won't be available for this until end of the month.

 

[Blkbird]

After reading the draft in its current form again, I'm shocked how unsatisfied I am with the whole section C.8, which is supposed to be the heart of our "flexible" ruleset.

First, the wording in C.8.a and C.8.b is illogical, confusing, and also politically incorrect: "[this and that] except when the citizenery ..."? What happens to "the people comes first"? How about turn it around to "unless the citizenery ..., [this and that]"? Those clauses need to be re-written, but before that we should clear up the next issue first:

C.8.e doesn't make any sense to me. All sub-offices are just temporary to the end of term? Hello? Am I imagining things? Tell me it wasn't like this before, please.

 

[Swissempire]

It almost seems as if the Tri is more flexible and Demo-rific

 

[ravensfire]

blkbird - I think you've got some valid complaints there. I'm not certain what Oct is trying to accomplish with the last clause in C.8.a. From a brief glance, I can't see anything that obviously says how the Assembly could fill an office.

What Octavian appears to be after, language aside, is laudable. You've got the 4 defined offices - the President, MDA, MFA, MMA - and the Governors in the Executive branch. These officials can create various positions by delegating their duties to that office. They can then appoint citizens to that office. These office ONLY exist for that term.

Or, elected officials can appoint citizens to help them perform their duties. This appointment lasts only for that term, and does not create a permanent office.

The language is pretty bad though - it makes the Tri look semi-clear, and I didn't think that was possible!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

What Octavian appears to be after, language aside, is laudable. You've got the 4 defined offices - the President, MDA, MFA, MMA - and the Governors in the Executive branch. These officials can create various positions by delegating their duties to that office. They can then appoint citizens to that office. These office ONLY exist for that term.

Then I must have missed the point when we - or better, you guys - decided to remove the previously existing possibility of making sub-offices permanent (permanent as in "longer than one term", not as in "irreversible") via an assembly vote. I don't understand why.