A Flexible Government?

[ravensfire]

Run an amendment to create the position.

It's done via the assembly, is already there, why create more rules that you need to?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

Run an amendment to create the position.

It's done via the assembly, is already there, why create more rules that you need to?

I don't like it. The amendment process is still a lengthy process (much less so than the current one, I acknowledge), I think it's overkill for creating AND disbanding additional offices.

Also it leaves the quesions open if additional offices are to be created as main offices (on the same level as the primary three) or sub-offices. I like sub-offices much, much better, and explicit clause would ensure that.

Since we *are* talking about the very cornerstone of this law draft - the "flexible" part - I think we shouldn't be too greedy about being brief.

 

[ravensfire]

Think of this as a form of evolutionary theory. If a suboffice works and proves useful, citizens will expect and demand it.

If the suboffice doesn't work and hinders the game, they will demand it's removal.

If it's just okay, it may, or may not stay.

Regardless, this allows a great deal of flexibility. I think a provision that would allow citizens to demand a new office would be nice to have though.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

Think of this as a form of evolutionary theory. If a suboffice works and proves useful, citizens will expect and demand it.

If the suboffice doesn't work and hinders the game, they will demand it's removal.

If it's just okay, it may, or may not stay.

Regardless, this allows a great deal of flexibility. I think a provision that would allow citizens to demand a new office would be nice to have though.

I'm OK with all that. What I have problem with is that at this time, the *default* fate of a suboffice is termination at term end. That troubles me. I have more faith in the decision of the officials and would like to make it default for suboffices to *stay* - temporarily, somehow.

Also, you haven't address my questions and concerns regarding the "offices vs. suboffices" issue.

 

[Octavian X]

Think of this as a form of evolutionary theory. If a suboffice works and proves useful, citizens will expect and demand it.

If the suboffice doesn't work and hinders the game, they will demand it's removal.

If it's just okay, it may, or may not stay.

Regardless, this allows a great deal of flexibility. I think a provision that would allow citizens to demand a new office would be nice to have though.

-- Ravensfire

(emphasis mine)

It's an intersting thought, but I feel that the citizens already have a great deal of latitude through an Assembly vote. Could you clarify what you mean by this, raven? If you're talking about a minister being forced to create an office on the demand of a few citizens, it doesn't seem like the best idea, given the tendancy that might have for abuse by minority groups.

Additionally, everyone, please feel free to make any suggestion possible for clearing up the language of the proposal! When I have a little more free time, I was planning to attack the proposal again to impleament some of the newer suggestions and to clarify the language - a lot of it is still the same copy-paste from older CoL versions. And, this time, I may get around to cross-referencing stuff with in-text anchors...

 

[ravensfire]

Also, you haven't address my questions and concerns regarding the "offices vs. suboffices" issue.

I think they are supposed to be sub-offices, and adding four characters would clear that up some.

EDIT: Although, it does clearly say "lower offices" at the top of the sub section, that's pretty darn clear to me.

It's an intersting thought, but I feel that the citizens already have a great deal of latitude through an Assembly vote. Could you clarify what you mean by this, raven? If you're talking about a minister being forced to create an office on the demand of a few citizens, it doesn't seem like the best idea, given the tendancy that might have for abuse by minority groups.

Completely agree. Maybe "Citizens may require a leader to create an office through a successful and specific Initiative." - would that work?

If you don't mind, I'm going to try a quick rewrite of that section.

EDIT: And you've already got it in there - nice, Octavian. I completely missed that. I might move it though ...

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Proposed rewrite:

All Officers of the Executive Branch may create lower offices to which they may delegate portions of their authority. The Citizen's Assembly may require an Officer to create or remove a lower office through a specific Initiative.

1. Executive Officers may appoint or remove Citizens as they please for the offices that are under their jurisdiction. The Citizen's Assembly may appoint or remove Citizens for offices through a Citizen's Assembly Initiative. Citizens appointed by the Citizen's Assembly may not be removed by the Executive Office controlling that lower office.
2. The duties of these lower offices must be publicly defined, and the office may be closed at any time by the Executive Officer to which it is responsible, except those offices created by a Citizen's Assembly Initiative.
4. All persons appointed to fill these lower offices may be Recalled by the Citizen’s Assembly.
5. All lower office, regardless of how they were created, are closed at the end of the term in which they were created.


Changes:
-- Added clause specifically allowing CA to force office creation/deletion. Although the right is implied, let's make it specific. (Implied through the power of initiative, which has force of law to require an official to perform an act within their power, blah, blah, blah)
-- Removed second clause in 1. - intent is unclear, confusing.
-- Removed 3 - moved contents to various locations to improve readability and logical flow
-- Removed last clause in 4 - already covered or is implied.

To answer your concern, Blkbird, about offices not extending beyond one term, it's actually quite easy to do that. Create a Citizen's Initiative that says "The President, at the beginning of their term, will create and fill a lower office that controls the allocation of workers." Simple and easy - remember that Initiatives don't expire unless specifically mentioned or a second Initiative cancels it out.

Octavian's wording makes it clear that citizens appointed to an office, regardless of the method, are there for that term only. It's a nice way to prevent abuse.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I'm confused a bit - what's the difference between having three main offices (President, Sec. of State, Sec. of War) plus several cabinet offices, vs. having 4 main office and several sub-offices. I thought one of the knocks against Triumvirate is the perceived division between the Triumvirate and the cabinet. How is this any different, on that point?

 

[Blkbird]

Proposed rewrite:

[...]

Still don't like it. It's not much different than before. What those clauses do is specify something, then restricting it, then added some to it, then remove some more. It doesn't have a straightforward order. You have to read through, and read it over again, and maybe a thrid time to entirely comprehend which clause cancels which out, what is an exception to what else, and so on.

Here is my rewrite:

8. All executive offices may each have a number of subsidary offices under their supervision, which may be referred to as "suboffices".

- a. A supervising office may delegate portions of its authority to any of its suboffices. The power and the duties of a suboffice must be publicly defined.

- b. Suboffices may be create and removed, Subofficers appointed and discharged. Such creation, removal, appointment and discharge may be conducted legislatively via an Initiative by the Citizens Assembly, or executively at the discretion of the supervising Executive Officer, as specified below.

- c. A suboffice may be created or removed legislatively at any time. A legislation creating a suboffice must specify a supervising office for it. A suboffice may also be created executively at any time, however it may only be removed executively if it was not legislatively created or if the legislation creating it explicitly allowed an executive removal.

- d. A Subofficer may be appointed or discharged legislatively at any time. A Subofficer may also be appointed executively at any time, however he may only be discharged executively if he was not legislatively appointed or if the legislation appointing him explicitly allowed an executive discharge.

- e. All suboffices, regardless of how they were created, are automatically removed at the end of the term in which they were created.​

 

[Blkbird]

To answer your concern, Blkbird, about offices not extending beyond one term, it's actually quite easy to do that. Create a Citizen's Initiative that says "The President, at the beginning of their term, will create and fill a lower office that controls the allocation of workers." Simple and easy - remember that Initiatives don't expire unless specifically mentioned or a second Initiative cancels it out.

That's nice, but I still feel an Initiative is too much of an requirement for a suboffice to be semi-perminent.

 

[ravensfire]

Here is my rewrite:

Wow - way, way too wordy. You're saying basically the exact same thing with twice the words!

And we'll agree to disagree on the process for semi-permanent lower offices.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

I'm confused a bit - what's the difference between having three main offices (President, Sec. of State, Sec. of War) plus several cabinet offices, vs. having 4 main office and several sub-offices. I thought one of the knocks against Triumvirate is the perceived division between the Triumvirate and the cabinet. How is this any different, on that point?

Flexibility in those sub-offices. The only offices created are the ones that need to be there.

There's also not the detailed bureaucracy that bogs down the Triumverate system. It's a much cleaner, faster and easier system.

-- Ravensfire

 

[akots]

@Blkbird: Sorry for ignorance, but I don't understand the purpose of your rewrite (post #109). So you trying to say that each new term there is a new suboffice law? Which automatically becomes obsolete in the next term? And point "d" is extremely confusing.

 

[Blkbird]

Wow - way, way too wordy. You're saying basically the exact same thing with twice the words!

I don't see how it's "twice the words". My rewrite is rather less a "rewrite" than a "re-organisation", I don't mind if someone compresses the sentences I used. I have 5 sub-paragraphs in my version, just like yours.

In any case, clearity has absolute priority over concision. The current version, and your rewrite, are simply unclear to an unacceptabe degree.

 

[ravensfire]

Sorry, but I quite disgree with your opinion. Wordiness generally does not increase readability. Simple, clear and direct language increases readability.

Yours fails that test. Badly.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

There's also not the detailed bureaucracy that bogs down the Triumverate system.
-- Ravensfire

When has the Tri been bogged down by words? Now your just making up facts( which if made up aren't actually facts at all, but in fact( no pun intended) unfacts because they are the anti-fact, which they could also be reffered to as)

Also I think blackbirds is not to wordy, and his layout makes it easy to understand!

Also

Think of this as a form of evolutionary theory. If a suboffice works and proves useful, citizens will expect and demand it.

If the suboffice doesn't work and hinders the game, they will demand it's removal.

If it's just okay, it may, or may not stay.

Regardless, this allows a great deal of flexibility. I think a provision that would allow citizens to demand a new office would be nice to have though.

This is already allowed in the Tri, and as you have stated, it is the central point in the Flexible THEORY! I see not why we need to replace it.

 

[ravensfire]

This is already allowed in the Tri, and as you have stated, it is the central point in the Flexible THEORY! I see not why we need to replace it.

Yes, it does. Except, it starts with multiple offices already out there. The flex system starts with just 3 - under half that of the Triumverate. There's quite a bit more flexibility that you can't get with the Tri.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Swissempire]

Yes, it does. Except, it starts with multiple offices already out there. The flex system starts with just 3 - under half that of the Triumverate. There's quite a bit more flexibility that you can't get with the Tri.

-- Ravensfire

Less offices isn't more Flexiblity, its just less positions for the new players trying to wet there noses a little! Boasting less offices doen't make you MORE flexible. The phrase LESS is MORE definitly doen't apply here. THough i'm not a total donkey. If you can convince me it is with real arguments and facts, i'll change my position! BUt i remain a loyalist, ya darn Flexie(j/k on the last bit)

P.S Whats a troller?

 

[Black_Hole]

Less offices isn't more Flexiblity, its just less positions for the new players trying to wet there noses a little! Boasting less offices doen't make you MORE flexible. The phrase LESS is MORE definitly doen't apply here. THough i'm not a total donkey. If you can convince me it is with real arguments and facts, i'll change my position! BUt i remain a loyalist, ya darn Flexie(j/k on the last bit)

P.S Whats a troller?

The triumvirate allows for very little flexibility. If we don't need an office in the triumvirate it is there anyway, that isn't flexibility! If we don't need an office in the flexible government, we don't create it! The flexible government allows us to create offices, in the triumvirate, they are already created.

 

[Blkbird]

The triumvirate allows for very little flexibility. If we don't need an office in the triumvirate it is there anyway, that isn't flexibility! If we don't need an office in the flexible government, we don't create it! The flexible government allows us to create offices, in the triumvirate, they are already created.

The funny things is, right now, the designated way to create new offices in Flex is via CoL ammendment. But of course you can create and remove any office via CoL ammendment in the Tri just as well. So, I don't see any difference here.