Code of Laws Proposal (complete replacement)

[donsig]

Having a poll end while someone is away is a minor inconvenience. Taking away that person's office is a major step, one we should only take if we're certain the official isn't coming back. If we're worried about lack of progress, let the deputy act when the official hasn't.

Yes, taking away a person's offcie in indeed a major step. That's why I think confirmation polls should be four days long. Can I assume that we are now in agreement on this?

Because it was written with the sole purpose of allowing the leaders control game decisions, and not the citizens. It does not even mention that a leader should post a poll over a decision, much less force them to do so.

If you want to stick with the current CoL, than I suggest you get off your ass and start working on it, because I don't want to mess with it. One proposed change that only your really concerned about doesn't cut it.

I'm not so sure that the CoL was written to allow leaders to control things but I do agree that that is what has been happening in this game. I've been fighting against that in my way, by trying to show that citizen's can take action and post initiatives that have to be accepted and recognized. It appears to be an uphill fight. I don't really see anything in this proposal that would make that fight easier. In fact requiring three days of discussion before even posting an initiative poll makes it more difficult!

And I really cannot see myself supporting a CoL that specifically encourages a DP to seek guidance from those at the chat.

 

[DaveShack]

Yes, taking away a person's offcie in indeed a major step. That's why I think confirmation polls should be four days long. Can I assume that we are now in agreement on this?

Not exactly. Having the poll at all takes away the office, at least psychologically. The longer the poll is, the longer the office is taken away. Also a long poll time gives the person trying to non-confirm the appointment a longer time to rant and rave and sling mud against the appointee. It would be better for all concerned to get it over with quickly, one way or the other. In the extremely unlikely event the majority actually want to nix the appointment, it's better if that is done faster too so the "acting" official is removed and the next appointment can be made.

Draw a parallel to the Senate confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas. Did we really need a long process which raked him through the coals, or would the people have been better served by not facing the spectacle of a Supreme Court Justice having been associated with short curly hairs?

Political attacks, and we're kidding ourselves if we say confirmation polls aren't a political attack, tend to be a little strong on the hysteria side and oblivious to the facts.

 

[DaveShack]

And I really cannot see myself supporting a CoL that specifically encourages a DP to seek guidance from those at the chat.

Guidance yes, but I agree there are too many folks who think it's perfectly OK to put "instructions to be specified during the chat" in the instruction thread. The DP should seek advice during the chat when there are no instructions, and the lack thereof don't constitute a stop condition. On the other hand, remember we've been worried about officials who paralyze the game by giving stop instructions that only let 1-2 turns finish.

 

[donsig]

Political attacks, and we're kidding ourselves if we say confirmation polls aren't a political attack, tend to be a little strong on the hysteria side and oblivious to the facts.

Then perhaps we'd be better off without confirmation polls. I'd say recalls/impeachments fall into the same category. Why don't we just get rid of them?

If we're going to keep them then we should have a decent amount of time to make our decision when voting. A four day poll would allow the hysteria you speak of to die down. Perhaps during that time cooler heads could prevail. As for these political attacks (as you call them) taking away the office psychologically, well, if the appointee / office holder can't stand the politcal heat he or she shouldn't be in the political kitchen.

I just played turn one of Cage Match II.

 

[robboo]

donsig...4 days to let things calm down...how long have you been railling against the "Nobody" appointment and "cur" appointment and nonrecusal.

While we generally have short attention spans, we do have long memories.

 

[donsig]

donsig...4 days to let things calm down...how long have you been railling against the "Nobody" appointment and "cur" appointment and nonrecusal.

While we generally have short attention spans, we do have long memories.

No, four days to allow anyone away for the weekend to still be able to vote in a poll. Someone else brought up the issue of hysrteria and I merely pointed out that time give people a chance to calm down.

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. Care to elaborate?

 

[robboo]

I am saying that the idea of hysteria dying down in 4 days time should not be used. People dont forget easily. I agree on the weekend thing BUT, I will not be heart broken or feel slighted if I miss a poll. This is a game and not real life and I for one prefer it to move forward to keep the interest levels up.

 

[donsig]

I am saying that the idea of hysteria dying down in 4 days time should not be used. People dont forget easily. I agree on the weekend thing BUT, I will not be heart broken or feel slighted if I miss a poll. This is a game and not real life and I for one prefer it to move forward to keep the interest levels up.

I understand the desire to keep interest up but I do not understand why letting a confirmation poll stay open for four days grinds this game to a halt. If you want to keep interest up then do what you can to take the decision making away from the turn chat and put it back in all the citizens hands via the forums.

 

[Swissempire]

@ Strider: I like it, but i still think changing it from advisors to minister or giving each a specific name would be better. Advisors implies all they do is advise. Also, the name Senate is cheese, Senator Strider. Then isntead of citiziens, we would all be Senators

@ The Dp'ing thing. Whats wrong from seeking guidance in the TC. Without guidance, the DP'er becomes the sole in-game dicatator. Unless we want the TC to end evrytime someones instructions don't cover everything

@Donsig. Seeing as a weekend is 2 1/2 days, three days should be sufficeint for your arguement

 

[Methos]

I understand the desire to keep interest up but I do not understand why letting a confirmation poll stay open for four days grinds this game to a halt. If you want to keep interest up then do what you can to take the decision making away from the turn chat and put it back in all the citizens hands via the forums.

I would have to agree with Donsig here. Look at DaveShack's turnset from yesterday and you'll notice he's the only one active in the turnchat. We have people all around the world with real life commitments who can't always make a turn chat session. Does this mean they wouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion because of RL?

The Instructions for a turn chat appear to be posted at least a couple days prior to the actual turn chat. The chances are higher for someone to have free time with the parameters numbered in days, rather than the parameters of an hour or two. In my opinion if an officer can't post his instructions with that couple of days time than the DP must choose how best to play the missing officers post. We have the option of electing our DPs' so apparently have put in our vote of confidence over their ability to make these decisions.

In summary, remove the 'allow instructions during a turnchat'.

 

[Strider]

I would have to agree with Donsig here. Look at DaveShack's turnset from yesterday and you'll notice he's the only one active in the turnchat. We have people all around the world with real life commitments who can't always make a turn chat session. Does this mean they wouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion because of RL?

The Instructions for a turn chat appear to be posted at least a couple days prior to the actual turn chat. The chances are higher for someone to have free time with the parameters numbered in days, rather than the parameters of an hour or two. In my opinion if an officer can't post his instructions with that couple of days time than the DP must choose how best to play the missing officers post. We have the option of electing our DPs' so apparently have put in our vote of confidence over their ability to make these decisions.

In summary, remove the 'allow instructions during a turnchat'.

Yeah, it doesn't say "allow instructions during a turnchat" anywhere that I know of. It actually says the exact opposite in two differant locations in the proposal.

 

[Methos]

@Strider: Do you mind editing the first post with the newest form of your revisal? Currently it's on page 5 in post #100. Thanks.

 

[Strider]

@Strider: Do you mind editing the first post with the newest form of your revisal? Currently it's on page 5 in post #100. Thanks.

I updated the newest version into the first post.

 

[Strider]

Is there any additional comments, or is this ready for a proposed poll?

 

[robboo]

Strider..in the linked thread below post #97
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158786&page=5

You state that you are leaving the demo-game after this month. IF so then why are you pushing this CoL. Just let us play with our own CoL instead of forcing changes and then leaving. That is what happend for the current CoL. In other words..let us fix our own game and government.

 

[Methos]

I agree with robboo. In Sigma's turnchat you also mentioned you were leaving the game so I see no reason to continue this proposal. Your its foundation and the main individual who is pushing this. If you're not going to continue playing that there is no reason to continue pushing this.

Might as well drop this since your done with the game.

 

[Strider]

I'm leaving after this month is over, correct. That does not mean I plan on never returning. Most likely it will be a repeat of the last time I disappeared, a 2 month absense and then a return.

This will not be my first time leaving, and I doubt it will be my last.

Why should I not continue it? I doubt I'd have gotten this far if there weren't others constantly offering suggestions and showing interest. Unless your saying that this proposal is being held up by my sheer will and reputation.

 

[robboo]

Again..dont put this to a vote if you arent going to be here. Let us fix our game and our government.

Which honestly seesm to be working fine..with the exception of the co-presidency proposal and its fallout.

 

[Strider]

It will all be ultimately decided by the citizens. I will not be completely gone, I plan on staying active in TNT and I still have to play my turns in the DG cagematch.

If anything does come up, I'll still be around to contact.

 

[Methos]

Again..dont put this to a vote if you arent going to be here. Let us fix our game and our government.

This is my biggest concern as well. Why bring this to a vote if you plan on leaving? It doesn't matter if you plan on returning or not. I mean no offense, but it appears selfish.

Which honestly seesm to be working fine..with the exception of the co-presidency proposal and its fallout.

Things do appear to be working better and the kinks are being ironed out. Surely you realize Strider that if your proposal does pass it too will require many months for the kinks to be ironed out. It would be extremely wrong for you to get this proposal voted in and than remove yourself from the game leaving the rest of us to iron out those kinks. If you plan on getting this passed you should also plan on sticking with it while the problems are being worked out. Don't leave that for the rest of us, assuming this is passed