Code of Laws Proposal (complete replacement)
- Thread starter Strider
- Start date
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Strider said:
That's up to the Censor. I think that's an interesting dichotomy with the Triumervate - for all the complexity and minutia it includes, there are several area (judiciary and censor) where the details are left up to the office holder.
In this case, it was taken out because the assumption was common sense would prevail. In that particular case, I don't see an issue with that.
-- Ravensfire
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
ravensfire said:
How is someone suppose to know they even can pre-nominated themselves?
As I said earlier, to much detail in some areas, and far to little in others. This is a case of the latter. If I remember correctly, it is because of poorly written election laws that were even having this discussion.
Swissempire
Poet Jester
I pre-nominated myself for the term 3 race
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Strider said:
Strider, it's right in the Censor's procedures - where it should be.
In fact, that's the person you would logically ask about it, and probably see it in their procedures!
-- Ravensfire
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
ravensfire said:
That's if they even bother to read the procedures, and still doesn't solve the problem of people not knowing it's possible.
However, regardless.. fitting it into the code of laws wouldn't fix that either. So were have to find an alternative method.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Bother to read the procedures ...
Bother to read the Code of Laws ...
Not going to change anything.
I expect, then, that you'll include every little detail, such has polling procedures, different types of polls, etc? If you're going to cover this insignificant issue, don't forget the big ones.
-- Ravensfire
Bother to read the Code of Laws ...
Not going to change anything.
I expect, then, that you'll include every little detail, such has polling procedures, different types of polls, etc? If you're going to cover this insignificant issue, don't forget the big ones.
-- Ravensfire
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Looks good, Strider. It takes talent to shorten things down so simply. There are two big things I'd suggest changing, though.
For one, the CoL should define the processes of Referendum and Initiative that are mentioned in the Constititon. This is the most glaring weakness of the present system, as those two are key tools of the citizen's branch.
Second, move the governors out of the legislative branch! They don't legislate anymore. It just doesn't make sense any more.
There are also a few wording things I'd suggest changing. Off the top of my head, renaming 'Censor' to 'President' (we've always had one), changing the 'House' to the 'Citizen's Assembly' (sounds nicer, imho), and finding a better name for the 'Generals Office.'
And, I mean no offense to your language skills, but there are just too many grammatical issues for my poor eyes to handle. Would you mind if I editted the document to fix these errors?
For one, the CoL should define the processes of Referendum and Initiative that are mentioned in the Constititon. This is the most glaring weakness of the present system, as those two are key tools of the citizen's branch.
Second, move the governors out of the legislative branch! They don't legislate anymore. It just doesn't make sense any more.
There are also a few wording things I'd suggest changing. Off the top of my head, renaming 'Censor' to 'President' (we've always had one), changing the 'House' to the 'Citizen's Assembly' (sounds nicer, imho), and finding a better name for the 'Generals Office.'
And, I mean no offense to your language skills, but there are just too many grammatical issues for my poor eyes to handle. Would you mind if I editted the document to fix these errors?
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Octavian X said:
Okay, I'll get to them once I get a chance. I'm distracted at the moment, but hopefully I'll beable to do it later tonight.
Also, yeah, my grammer sucks... it has always sucked.. and I think it will always suck. Of course, in my defense, English wasn't the first language I learned how to speak.
Anyway, the grammer check is fine by me. Can you wait for me to get the referendum, etc. stuff up however?
donsig
Low level intermediary
Strider said:
Wow. I've been reading your posts for a few years now and wouldn't have guessed that. What is your fist language?
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Okay, the sunset clause... referendum.. and Initiative.. up for discussion:
Okay, all three of these are written poorly, but I'm looking for discussion at this moment.
I'll start off by explaining an Initiative. A citizen creates a discussion to pass a by-law, saying that we must build up our army to 10 axes, 15 spears, etc. within a particular time-frame. The by-law passes, so the executive branch is then forced to respond to that by-law, and meet it's requirements.
Another possibility is that the citizens pass a by-law saying that we must prepare for war with Mongolia, or that we must declare war on Mongolia before ? time.
------------
The idea behind the sunset clause is pretty easy, it's just emergency legislation that will retire (or "set") after a certain time frame. It allow us to create a temporary solution, to give us more time to discuss a permanent one.
Okay, all three of these are written poorly, but I'm looking for discussion at this moment.
I'll start off by explaining an Initiative. A citizen creates a discussion to pass a by-law, saying that we must build up our army to 10 axes, 15 spears, etc. within a particular time-frame. The by-law passes, so the executive branch is then forced to respond to that by-law, and meet it's requirements.
Another possibility is that the citizens pass a by-law saying that we must prepare for war with Mongolia, or that we must declare war on Mongolia before ? time.
------------
The idea behind the sunset clause is pretty easy, it's just emergency legislation that will retire (or "set") after a certain time frame. It allow us to create a temporary solution, to give us more time to discuss a permanent one.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
donsig said:
Actually, that's really no excuse for my poor grammer. I spent the first three to four years of my life hearing (and speaking) german, but I never learned how to write in german. English was the first language I learned how to write in.
I also have a bad habit of using periods and commas to symbolize pauses. If you notice, I tend to end quite a few sentences with multiple periods, before I start up again.
Sigma
Censor
On the topic of Referenda and Bylaws (also known as initiative)...
The idea of bylaws was my idea and I have discussed it with Strider for the past hour or so. It's something that I think we have needed the ability to do for a while now.
A bylaw is any law that is proposed and passed by the citizenry by simple majority, and does not conflict with the Constitution. It can apply to anything, including in-game strategy and out-of-game policy and processes.
For example, a bylaw can be passed to block all trade of technologies with Mongolia. So long as that bylaw is in effect, we can never trade techs with Mongolia. Another example could be to create a new department or position, such as a Minister of Religion. But bylaws can also repealed by other bylaws, so we could later pass a bylaw that allowed us to resume trading technologies with Mongolia.
The bylaws would be maintained in their own thread or post, and all officials and citizens are required to abide by them. (The way I view it, the Code of Laws is just a bunch of bylaws being passed at once) The reason this is helpful is that citizens can make proposals, that will become law, as opposed to just being an initiative poll, and without going through a complicated amendment process.
Difference between Referenda and Bylaws:
Referenda are polls that are used to make one decision at one time. For instance, we might decide to trade fishing for mysticism: this would be a referendum. Bylaws/initiatives become law, and are in effect until they are repealed or expire. So if someone tried to propose the above referendum for trading with Mongolia, but an active bylaw said we couldn't trade any techs to Mongolia, that referendum would be invalid.
Regarding Sunset Clauses:
I think this could just be generalized to say that any bylaw can have an expiration date, at which point the bylaw becomes null (as if it was repealed). Having a separate section would only really be necessary if we wanted to bypass the whole polling procedures and give someone "emergency powers" (which would not be covered by the bylaws).
The idea of bylaws was my idea and I have discussed it with Strider for the past hour or so. It's something that I think we have needed the ability to do for a while now.
A bylaw is any law that is proposed and passed by the citizenry by simple majority, and does not conflict with the Constitution. It can apply to anything, including in-game strategy and out-of-game policy and processes.
For example, a bylaw can be passed to block all trade of technologies with Mongolia. So long as that bylaw is in effect, we can never trade techs with Mongolia. Another example could be to create a new department or position, such as a Minister of Religion. But bylaws can also repealed by other bylaws, so we could later pass a bylaw that allowed us to resume trading technologies with Mongolia.
The bylaws would be maintained in their own thread or post, and all officials and citizens are required to abide by them. (The way I view it, the Code of Laws is just a bunch of bylaws being passed at once) The reason this is helpful is that citizens can make proposals, that will become law, as opposed to just being an initiative poll, and without going through a complicated amendment process.
Difference between Referenda and Bylaws:
Referenda are polls that are used to make one decision at one time. For instance, we might decide to trade fishing for mysticism: this would be a referendum. Bylaws/initiatives become law, and are in effect until they are repealed or expire. So if someone tried to propose the above referendum for trading with Mongolia, but an active bylaw said we couldn't trade any techs to Mongolia, that referendum would be invalid.
Regarding Sunset Clauses:
I think this could just be generalized to say that any bylaw can have an expiration date, at which point the bylaw becomes null (as if it was repealed). Having a separate section would only really be necessary if we wanted to bypass the whole polling procedures and give someone "emergency powers" (which would not be covered by the bylaws).
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Sigma, as an FYI - we have that now - it's called an Initiative.
Sunset clauses - there's something missing there, but I'm too tired to figure it out. It just doesn't feel right, right now.
-- Ravensfire
Sunset clauses - there's something missing there, but I'm too tired to figure it out. It just doesn't feel right, right now.
-- Ravensfire
Sigma
Censor
True enough, but any initiatives we've had have not been treated as I'm proposing. For instance, I have no idea which initiatives have been passed in the last 3 months, because there is no record.
Initiatives (or bylaws) should be written down as a law, should take the form of law when passed, and be recorded in the Constitution/Code of Laws thread in the main forum.
Chillaxation
Warlord
The Code as it stands does not distinguish a difference between the force of a bill, its duration and its scope. Certainly there ought to be a binding democratic decree from the assembly which overrides all other in-game mandates or orders. For example, as a newer DG-er than I am now, I was confused by the wording of the Code regarding initiatives - and I thought that they should only be used in the scope of the game to provide continual guidance for decision making. So, I mistakenly posted a referendum, when it had to be an "initiative" for a city settlement because it had to supercede the referendum.
So I agree with the notion that the duration and scope of a bill should be distinguished from its force. Not every "initiative" should or even can guide decisions thenceforth for the rest of the game (though some can and should); not every bill, passed by the citizens to respond to an event, should be less forceful in law than orders given by the assembly to guide the DP for the rest of the game. Furthermore, neither the question of force nor of duration covers the question of the scope of the law: as I am finding out, there is a great deal of need for citizen guidance and participation in the out-of-game sphere.
I think there's a need for terminating durations from some assembly bills and for permanent order durations - and executive procedure durations - for others.
Is there a way we can come closer to a more nuanced labelling of bills?
So I agree with the notion that the duration and scope of a bill should be distinguished from its force. Not every "initiative" should or even can guide decisions thenceforth for the rest of the game (though some can and should); not every bill, passed by the citizens to respond to an event, should be less forceful in law than orders given by the assembly to guide the DP for the rest of the game. Furthermore, neither the question of force nor of duration covers the question of the scope of the law: as I am finding out, there is a great deal of need for citizen guidance and participation in the out-of-game sphere.
I think there's a need for terminating durations from some assembly bills and for permanent order durations - and executive procedure durations - for others.
Is there a way we can come closer to a more nuanced labelling of bills?
donsig said:
Transition is easy -- include in the ratification poll an effective date, and elect the next term under the new system.
By definition, the term for that office doesn't start until the run-off ends. I'm not sure what you mean.
We have a very fine definition now. Anyone with a good grasp of independent and dependent statements, and antecedent associations, can read it correctly directly from the law as written, but I've rewritten it here for the comprehension challenged.
The President takes applications and makes an appointment, which is subject to a confirmation vote. Existing office holders are prohibited from applying until 72 hours have passed and no citizen without an office has applied. If an existing office holder applies and is appointed, that person must resign the previous post prior to moving into the new post. The appointee may delay resigning and moving into the new office until the time period for confirmation votes (48 hours) has passed.
Just commenting on comments so far... I've just arrived back home after a week away on business so will have to digest the actual proposal before I can comment on it.
One comment though, since you're interested in formatting, or lack thereof -- please don't post the thing in quote tags. It makes quoting the proposal to talk about it much more difficult.
On the "legal exploits" thing...
I'd be cool with just sections and subsections. Just don't call the top level Articles, so it doesn't get confused with the Constitution.
One comment though, since you're interested in formatting, or lack thereof -- please don't post the thing in quote tags. It makes quoting the proposal to talk about it much more difficult.
Yes, but changing the cabinet in this way is an excersize of the mandate power. The Constitution says that an Initiative (citizen vote) can override mandate, so the citizens can indeed stop such a change by disapproving.Strider said:
Hmm, one thing we've done in the past is put the election office in charge, not put election procedures in the law. Other times we've put procedures in the law. Can you point to a point in this game that it's been a problem? Also don't overlook what the Constitution says about elections.
On the "legal exploits" thing...
If someone finds an "exploit" and the people decide that we don't want to make it illegal, it gets listed here. What was so hard to understand about that?
So that if we elect someone to be a justice who is easily swayed by threats of impeachment, that person won't cave in to the threats and rule against the correct interpretation of the law. Note also that a justice can still be tried by means of a CC and if convicted might be removed from office, so they are not above the law.
6) I got tired of constantly seeing Articles and Sections, so I decided to switch it up some. Of course, it was only after that I realized we seperate our government in branches. So I'll cut you a deal... we keep the elements, but change the branches back to sections.
I'd be cool with just sections and subsections. Just don't call the top level Articles, so it doesn't get confused with the Constitution.
Something is wrong with the amendment section, it says a majority and then says a 2/3 majority. Also don't overlook the Constitution which says no vote may require a higher percentage than an amendment to the Constitution (currently 60%). This comment applies to other sections too.
Three days for an unannounced absense is too short. An announced absense of 7 days is also too short. We had a system in a previous DG which allowed a deputy to act if the official had not acted and there were fewer than 24 hours remaining on a deadline, how about reinstating that one.
Governors don't really belong in the legislative, as already noted by others.
The current CoL is missing a maximum number of days between play sessions. It's missing other things too but I will leave that to others to point out if they actuall want those other things.
It's missing a provision for governors of provinces / states. We will easily run out of players if we stick with one per city.
Religion seems to be missing? Need someone to coordinate spread of religion both within and outside our borders, assuming we eventually get religion.
In the governor section there is a reference to specialization but I think it was meant to be specialists. We do need that specialization item, but it needs to be centrally coordinated. In particular, the national wonders need to be assigned, and we need cities producing different kinds of Great People in order to get GAs. For that matter, Great Wonders need to be assigned as well.
Were Great Merchants specified anywhere?
Three days for an unannounced absense is too short. An announced absense of 7 days is also too short. We had a system in a previous DG which allowed a deputy to act if the official had not acted and there were fewer than 24 hours remaining on a deadline, how about reinstating that one.
Governors don't really belong in the legislative, as already noted by others.
The current CoL is missing a maximum number of days between play sessions. It's missing other things too but I will leave that to others to point out if they actuall want those other things.
It's missing a provision for governors of provinces / states. We will easily run out of players if we stick with one per city.
Religion seems to be missing? Need someone to coordinate spread of religion both within and outside our borders, assuming we eventually get religion.
In the governor section there is a reference to specialization but I think it was meant to be specialists. We do need that specialization item, but it needs to be centrally coordinated. In particular, the national wonders need to be assigned, and we need cities producing different kinds of Great People in order to get GAs. For that matter, Great Wonders need to be assigned as well.
Were Great Merchants specified anywhere?
