cabinet-votes obsolete?

[disorganizer]

but all this should be stated clearer in the constitution somehow. thats my problem. if you only read the constitution and dont read what really happens, it looks like only the officials have power.
i know this is not true, but the constitution should also reflect it.
maybe just a part that a public investigation is started every time a citizen poll is not followed or a cabinet-vote is started? like you did in your case (nobody could have forced you to do so at the moment)

 

[disorganizer]

btw: we should also allow not-binding polls. this should be explicitly stated in the poll description. or we make unbinding default and have the binding polls to be specially taged with a description.
like "INOFFICIAL:what is the winnig goal we want to reach at the moment?"

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
but all this should be stated clearer in the constitution somehow. thats my problem. if you only read the constitution and dont read what really happens, it looks like only the officials have power.
i know this is not true, but the constitution should also reflect it.
maybe just a part that a public investigation is started every time a citizen poll is not followed or a cabinet-vote is started? like you did in your case (nobody could have forced you to do so at the moment)

We should define the investigation process itself and make that a new section. Then we can reference it for violations. How does it go, from start to finish?

1. Suspect violates an article of the Constitution.
2. Suspect is reported to the Investigation thread or a Mod. If to a Mod, the Mod reports the allegation to the Investigation thread. Constitution article allegedly violated must be noted.
3. Individual investigation thread is opened. Suspect is notified.
4. Suspect posts a defense.
5. Citizens post their opinions.
6. If the discussion is not clearly in favor or against the suspect a poll is held.
7. If the suspect is found guilty a punishment poll is held (maybe - Eviction/Final Warning/Warning or something like that).

 

[disorganizer]

it need not be a violation of the constitution though. some things will start a investigation, like:
* devoicing citizens in the chat
* using cabinet-polls (if not constitutional change)
* overriding any decision taken by citizen polls
the suspect should then open a post in the investigation thread and a cossesponding discussion thread himself (cross-linked). he can state a reason for his action there and citizens can discuss with him........ like you proposed
i just want to state that investigations not only go with constitutional violations.

 

[Shaitan]

Overriding a poll is a Constitutional violation and devoicing is specifically noted that it will lead to an investigation. I think investigating every Cabinet Vote would be a bad idea. It would make investigations common and detract from their "aura". There's no need to investigate a vote to adopt province borders, etc.

I think investigations should only happen for violations or actions that specify an investigation will occur.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
btw: we should also allow not-binding polls. this should be explicitly stated in the poll description. or we make unbinding default and have the binding polls to be specially taged with a description.
like "INOFFICIAL:what is the winnig goal we want to reach at the moment?"

I agree that non-binding polls are a valuable resource. I think it should be the other way around though. If a Leader posts a poll it should be binding by default unless there's a specific disclaimer that the poll is for information only (unofficial).

 

[disorganizer]

ok. so we comply there!
so wee need:
* an article stating what a citizen can do and how he could influence the game, but also his duties. and this article should be the at the beginning of the constitution
* an article stating how investigations work and when they start
* poll-definitions with binding and unbinding polls, so it should be clearly stated in the cons that all polls are binding for the government unless otherwise stated in the description and title of the poll
* it should be clearly stated what cabinet-polls are really for, and in which cases a investigation follows.

we should not make differences between chats and forum there, as those changes are like the chat-rules (IMHO)

 

[Shaitan]

Agreed. Now we're gettin' somewhere!

I just got a stack of paperwork dumped on me but can work on this over lunch.

 

[disorganizer]

wow. we should propose you for some medal. you ARE fast man!

 

[Shaitan]

Here's what I've got. Comments, suggestions, additions, and subtractions requested.

Proposal for Citizens

1. All people playing the Democracy game are citizens of Phoenatica. Some citizens are elected or appointed to positions with additional duties, responsibilities and powers.
2. Citizens are encouraged to vote in polls and elections and offer their views and opinions in discussions.
3. Citizens may start discussion threads and post in all threads, including departmental threads.
4. Citizens are welcome in the chat room when the game turn is played.
5. Citizens may vote in Citizen Polls in the chat room to determine game decisions.
6. Citizens may not post polls that deal with topics specifically under the jurisdiction of an official but may post opinion polls and gameplay related polls.
7. Citizens may request that an official post a poll related to their area of jurisdiction. If two other citizens agree with the request (motion seconded and carried) the official must post the poll.

Proposal for Investigations

1. Suspect violates an article of the Constitution.
2. Suspect is reported to the Investigation thread or a Mod. If reported to a Mod, the Mod reports the allegation to the Investigation thread. The Constitution article allegedly violated must be noted.
3. The suspect is notified of the charges.
4. An investigation thread is opened detailing the facts of the alleged violation and history of convictions.
5. The first reply to this thread is reserved for the suspect’s response to the charges (defense). If the suspect has not posted in 24 hours they lose this reserved spot and anybody can post.
6. Citizens post their opinions on the charge and whether they think the suspect is guilty of an infraction.
7. If the discussion is not clearly in favor or against the suspect a poll is held to determine guilt or innocence.
8. If the suspect is found guilty through the investigation thread or poll, a sentencing poll is held. Possible punishments are eviction from the Demo game, suspension from the Demo game, loss of office, final warning, warning and no punishment.

Proposal for Poll Procedures

1. Polls posted by officials are considered binding unless they are specifically noted to be informational only in the Title and Body of the poll.
2. When a discussion thread has led to a poll, the poll should reference back (hyperlink) to the discussion.
3. The closing date of the poll should be noted in the poll post.

 

[Cyc]

Shaitan, you are seemingly lumping poll procedures in with your Cabinet vote suggestions. They are separate things and should be discussed as such. The poll procedure thread is now buried, but they are now being standardized in a thread covering a different topic. As you are a major poller (is that a word? pollist?...), you should be discussing these procedures out in the open with the rest of the citizens, not under the guise of Cabinet votes. Please stop this and resume discussion of poll procedures in the appropriate thread.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Cyc
Shaitan, you are seemingly lumping poll procedures in with your sub-forum suggestions. They are separate things and should be discussed as such. The poll procedure thread is now buried, but they are now being standardized in a thread covering a different topic. As you are a major poller (is that a word? pollist?...), you should be discussing these procedures out in the open with the rest of the citizens, not under the guise of Cabinet votes. Please stop this and resume discussion of poll procedures in the appropriate thread.

No, they're not getting lumped in. They were just discussed here. The poll portion here isn't meant to be any major change or the final word. They are just things that became aparently necessary while working through the Forum realignment proposal so needed to be addressed here.

These aren't proposed Cabinet Votes, they are proposed Citizen Polls. We've also been discussing them right here, definitely out in the open.

 

[donsig]

I printed this thread out today and read it over. I have some general comments to add to the discussion.

I can see disorganizer's concerns about citizen's seeing only government people in the constitution. At the same time I think of the US constitution and it is basically about government simply because a constitution is a set of rules for a government! That governmental 'feel' can't be written out of the constitution.

That said, what does the US constitution have that ours doesn't?

A preamble and a bill of rights.

A preamble that summarizes what we're all about here in Phoenatica would be the first thing read in the constitution. It would set the tone for everything that follows.

A bill of rights that simply and clearly spells out what citizens can do may well be what disorganizer is looking for. The first part of Shaitan's proposal is similar to a bill of rights.

A preamble and a bill of rights would be welcome additions to our constitution. I don't think polling and investigatory procedures need be part of the constitution. The latter two subjects are certainly needed and I suggest they be discussed and codifed then ratified by a citizen poll. I would not take the step of a cabinet vote to incorporate them into the constitution. We can make some rules without revising the constitution, can't we (so long as these rules do not conflict with the constitution)?

 

[Shaitan]

Donsig - I love the idea of a Constitution that is more like a real Constitution. I think you were the one who suggested a Constitution separate from a "book of laws" or somesuch? That's a great idea too and I'd like to see how others feel about it. I envision the Constitution being the rights of the people and powers of the government and the Laws being the rules how they would all be implemented, plus all of the game mechanics stuff. The Constitution should be hard to change and the Laws relatively easier to change. Laws would have to follow the guidelines/tenets of the Constitution.

This would be a lot of work though and I don't have time to do it right now. In two weeks or so my workload will lighten as my company releases it's latest release of our software. After that I won't have to work ridiculous hours and would have time for a massive work like this.

Unless someone else would like to pick it up and run with it? (hint, hint)

 

[donsig]

Someone in the Civfanatics chatroom came up with the idea of distinguishing between laws and the constitution. (I can't remember who it was but I think it was either disorganizer or Chiefpaco.)

Codifying laws and retooling the constitution is a big step that needs input from many citizens. Two weeks does not seems to be too long a period to discuss this matter. Since it is a matter that may well impact the next demo game we have to be careful to come up with a system that will not only work now and in the future of this game but in the beginning of a game as well.

 

[disorganizer]

it was proposed by me in the tread proposing things for the next game ;-)

but to shaitans post:
im still missing the investigation for chat-related issues and if cabinet-polls are used insted of citizen-polls for major decisions or to override a poll.

i dont understand cycs post though, because it was not shaitan who started these threads and those ideas were brought up in many threads till now. its just we two discussed them in here to a detail never reached in a thread before, but i think you can easily post a entry in the thread where you would like it be discussed to crosslink the threads.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
but to shaitans post:
im still missing the investigation for chat-related issues and if cabinet-polls are used insted of citizen-polls for major decisions or to override a poll.

These are already part of the Constitution - accepted in the last Council Vote. In fact, they were just recently updated into the Constitution by the Mods.

 

[disorganizer]

i did not find them there. can you post a reference?

 

[Shaitan]

Section O, Article 8: Devoicing actions and the exclusion of Citizen Spot Polls will be investigated in the forum in the Public Investigation Thread.

 

[disorganizer]

Section O only takes care of the Chat.
I meant the explicit mentioning of a investigation if cabinet-votes are used insted of citizen votes.

and to the chat-rules in section O: if we have an investigation-section, they should also be mentioned there. redundancy is always there in official documents ;-)