Chain of Command

[Provolution]

Yes, like the lottery I suggested, which only me , Cyc, Ravensfire and one more voted for. Where we ranked city names and polled them in series.

 

[MOTH]

If we don't get a satisfactory CoC up in time, use a lottery to determine city names.

No need for a lottery, we can just name them with numbers until the CoC is setup and rename them later once we identify the CoC.

In anycase, I think we already have a good outline of the CoC and just need to agree.

 

[Provolution]

MOTH, yes, good you agree it is the constitution poll listing, since that is where the legitimacy stems from.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

No lottery, people. Remember the ratified article? If no CoC is in place, then we go with an implied CoC that comes from our Constitution. No sense making a bad thing worse.

 

[Provolution]

Yes, stick to the constitution , that is the way it goes Term One.

 

[ravensfire]

I've copied DZ's proposal

President
Vice President
Domestic Consul
External Consul
Commander of Armed Forces
Resources and Technologies Consul
Culture Consul
Director of Infrastructure
Director of Commerce
Director of Expansion
Governors
Chief Justice
Judge Advocate
Public Defender

The only deputy on the list is the VP - that's a generally accepted exception. If we actually get down to trying to find deputies to play the save - we shouldn't be playing it. Indeed, if it wasn't for the CoC being used for naming, I would suggest removing the Judiciary from it. It is however, so I feel they should stay.

I would actually prefer to see the Commander of Armed Forces to be moved back to the rest of the Directors, but understand DZ's motivation.

Let's wrap this up quickly folks. Our referee's appear to have deserted, again, so it's up to us to finish things off.

What major issues do you have with this list?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Ravensfire, I too see your point in keeping Strategic and Tactical Consuls grouped within their own ranks, but here is something else I just considered:

The Strategic positions were created to allow those without Conquests a chance to hold office. Yet we will be placing them first in the CoC?

I guess if Strategic Consuls cannot play, we just move to the next in line anyway so no harm done. I also agree that the Gameplay CoC should only include the 9 Executive positions (10 if we have a VP), so perhaps the city naming CoC does belong in a separate article.

 

[ravensfire]

Well, the Consuls are there more to put an emphasis on strategy than giving non-C3C citizens meaningful participation. Both are objectives, though.

You are correct, if the current person on the CoC cannot play, it would just bounce to the next.

Adding a clause that "For game play purposes, the Chain of Command shall consist only of the members of the Executive Branch and the Legislative branch that are on the full Chain of Command." works for me. If we ever have to bounce that low in the CoC, we're probably better off cancelling and rescheduling the chat.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

If the Consuls are first on the list, there is less chance that a DP will be implementing his / her own instructions. OTOH the Directors would be more familiar with the actual instructinos, especially their own. Also I have been uncomfortable with the implied superiority of one set of offices or the other depending on their place in the CoC. This was one of the reasons that I wanted a separate DP position, though with the ressurection of using the CoC for naming, that wouldn't have helped.

How about this as a mock poll, let's put this before the people as soon as possible.

Which CoC do you prefer? See first post for more details.

A. Strategic Consuls first, then Tactical Directors, then Governors, then Judiciary
B. Tactical Directors, then Strategic Consuls, then Governors, then Judiciary
C. Other
D. Abstain

 

[Double Stack]

I vote for CoC A, but without the Judiciary. The Judiciary should make sure that the Executive and Legisulation branches does not interfere with each other when giving their instruction to the DP and see that the CoC is enforced.

 

[DaveShack]

I vote for CoC A, but without the Judiciary. The Judiciary should make sure that the Executive and Legisulation branches does not interfere with each other when giving their instruction to the DP and see that the CoC is enforced.

There will be an actual poll once we agree the options in the poll are the right ones.

Remember as currently designed the CoC has a double purpose, to organize the order in which Designated Players are chosen, and for determining who names each city. Is it fair to assume your comment on the Judiciary pertains only to the role of DP?

 

[Double Stack]

Is it fair to assume your comment on the Judiciary pertains only to the role of DP?

Yes that is what I mean.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

is there a demogame every month or no? cs I WANT TO LEAD THE MARINES!!!

 

[DaveShack]

is there a demogame every month or no? cs I WANT TO LEAD THE MARINES!!!

The demogame lasts several months, called "terms". We hold elections each month for the people who will lead each area that month. You can also participate as a citizen by commenting in discussion threads (or starting your own) and voting in polls. We also engage in some aspects of role playing, as each leader tends to adjust their online persona slightly to match their current role in the game.

As for leading marines, it will be 5,000 years or more till we understand what that means, but the current Commander of Armed Forces may be looking for an aide-de-camp.

 

[ravensfire]

How about this as a mock poll, let's put this before the people as soon as possible.

Which CoC do you prefer? See first post for more details.

A. Strategic Consuls first, then Tactical Directors, then Governors, then Judiciary
B. Tactical Directors, then Strategic Consuls, then Governors, then Judiciary
C. Other
D. Abstain

Poll posted here.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Based on the results of the poll ...

Proposed Poll for the Chain of Command:

Do you approve of the addition of the following Section to the Code of Laws?

C.  Chain of Command
    1.  The Chain of Command will be as follows:
        a.  President
        b.  Vice-President
        c.  Consul for Domestic Policy
        d.  Consul for External Policy
        e.  Consul for Cultural Policy
        f.  Consul for Resources and Technology Policy
        g.  Commander of Armed Forces
        h.  Director of Commerce
        i.  Director of Infrastructure
        j.  Director of Expansion
        k.  Governors (by order of province founding)
        l.  Chief Justice
        m.  Judge Advocate
        n.  Public Defender
        
    2.  If the current Designated Player cannot start the game session
        in a timely manner, or cannot continue, the next official in 
        the chain command may take over duties of DP.  
        
    3.  For the purposes of playing the save, the Judiciary is not
        considered part of the Chain of Command.

Yes
No
Abstain

This poll will run for 4 days.

-- Ravensfire

 

[mad-bax]

I'm not sure that I am allowed to post here, but I would like to vote "FOR" this CoC except for the fact that it has an error which makes it unconstitutional IMO.

The second in the chain of command is an appointed position, and this is undemocratic. The Vice President only has powers in the absence of the President and would therefore be acting as President at such time. The Vice Prsident should be removed from the CoC before I could vote for it.

I have another issue with the CoC which would not prevent me voting for it.

In my view the Commander of the Armed forces is basically a micromanagement position.

In peace time therefore troop location etc should be determined from the result of city location and infrastructure etc. Troop location should not determine where cities are built and roads engineered.

In War time then the position should be promoted above everyone but the President, since the Commander must be able to influence all policy relevant to the defence of the nation, (Number of Units required, roads and railways for advancing, reinforcing positions, civil defence builds, tech procurement for necessary units and buildings etc).

 

[Black_Hole]

I'm not sure that I am allowed to post here, but I would like to vote "FOR" this CoC except for the fact that it has an error which makes it unconstitutional IMO.

The second in the chain of command is an appointed position, and this is undemocratic. The Vice President only has powers in the absence of the President and would therefore be acting as President at such time. The Vice Prsident should be removed from the CoC before I could vote for it.

I have another issue with the CoC which would not prevent me voting for it.

In my view the Commander of the Armed forces is basically a micromanagement position.

In peace time therefore troop location etc should be determined from the result of city location and infrastructure etc. Troop location should not determine where cities are built and roads engineered.

In War time then the position should be promoted above everyone but the President, since the Commander must be able to influence all policy relevant to the defence of the nation, (Number of Units required, roads and railways for advancing, reinforcing positions, civil defence builds, tech procurement for necessary units and buildings etc).

if the president isnt at the chat, than he could be considered absent

 

[ravensfire]

Mad-Bax,

Much though it pains me to admit, nearly all of the CoC comes from tradition, from past games. The VP is the only deputy in the CoC - and that is very much a part of that tradition. It's in there because it works and hasn't caused any problems.

The CAF shouldn't be a total micro-management position. During peace, there won't be that much to do other than manage troop distribution. However, that's true of many other Director positions - they focus on the details. During war-time, however, the CAF become much more visible as a balance. The Consul for External Policy isn't going to be dealing with specific battle plans, but focusing on what to take. The CAF has to decide how to take those objectives and the timing.

I'm very much against the idea of a radical shift in government during war-time. First, we've not had any real problems with people not respecting the requests from the military during war. Second, keeping the same format makes things consistent - everyone knows who is doing what and who to talk to. Third, the type of control you are talking about makes nearly every other leader a rubber-stamping figurehead. No thanks, that's not the type of Government I want. Finally, we've had a few leaders that, had they the control you're talking about, would have dramatically remade the country in their vision. That's not a good thing.

I expect our leaders to use reason and persuasion to make their case on issues. Likewise, I expect citizens to respond to that same reason and persuasion, and make their decisions accordingly. It's worked in the past - I see no reason it won't work in the future.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

I'm not sure that I am allowed to post here, but I would like to vote "FOR" this CoC except for the fact that it has an error which makes it unconstitutional IMO.

The second in the chain of command is an appointed position, and this is undemocratic. The Vice President only has powers in the absence of the President and would therefore be acting as President at such time. The Vice President should be removed from the CoC before I could vote for it.

I have another issue with the CoC which would not prevent me voting for it.

In my view the Commander of the Armed forces is basically a micromanagement position.

In peace time therefore troop location etc should be determined from the result of city location and infrastructure etc. Troop location should not determine where cities are built and roads engineered.

In War time then the position should be promoted above everyone but the President, since the Commander must be able to influence all policy relevant to the defence of the nation, (Number of Units required, roads and railways for advancing, reinforcing positions, civil defence builds, tech procurement for necessary units and buildings etc).

I have presented a possible fix to the Vice President Appointment. Since there is no deadline for accepting the position, no real mechanism to contest a delayed Appointment, a forgotten Appointment or vacant appointment, as well as that making the 2nd position in CoC.

We can handle this in several ways.

VP is a runner-up in the elections.
VP is a running mate in the elections on the same ballot
VP is canceled out as a position, and we only use Consuls and Directors
VP is subject to an approval poll, verifying the acceptance of nomination and the public support of the citizen, who also got secondary city naming rights
VP becomes a new elected office with defined responsibilities

For the cabinet structure, it clearly needs a fix, and I have presented a reform to reinstate the Foreign Affairs and Military as separate entities.