Code of Laws Proposal Turnchats

[gert-janl]

Blackheart has proposed the following amendment to our Code of Laws.

CoL G.5 - Turnchat Schedule
A.  At least 4 days between Turnchats is required. The time, however, of
    the TC does not have to be exactly 96 hours from the previous Turnchat.
    Some latitude will be given (+/- 5 hours). This latitude is up to the
    discretion of the DP. 
B.  There must be played at least one full Turnchat every week; one full
    turnchat usually constitutes of at least 10 turns, but this does not have
    to be fully played as the DP can stop the turnchat early as the need 
    arises.
C.  If required, the DP can decide to hold more turnchats, limited to one turn, 
    as needed to decide in matters of trade or any other one turn actions. 
    During these one turn TCs no more than one turn can be played, but no 
    turns (effectively pressing the turn button) are needed to be played, just 
    the instructions are required to be carried out as dictated by the 
    ministers and governors.

The Judiciary ruled that this amendment doesn't conflict with the Constitution, hence the proposal is now up for polling. For reference see the Judicial Log.

You can choose to either vote in favour, either against, or you can abstain from voting. The poll will run 72 hours.

In order to pass this amendment at least 12 voters (37% of the census) are required, with at least an approval percentage of 55%. For reference see CoL section I article 2 and 3.

 

[MOTH]

As I said in the discussion on this, no. It forces too much in-flexibility.

 

[blackheart]

I support this. This is what the TCs are mostly like now, except with the addition of the one turn and no turn TCs. The TCs are already ran close to this type of schedule.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Why is this a private poll?

 

[Sir Donald III]

I've decided that I disapprove of Section C in this Article.

If I run for President, then I'm thinking about a more... "fluid" TC structure, where I string together a bunch of 5-10 Turn-Chats over the course of the month. I'd still give the Ministers the time they need, however. I mean you can't really have even a trade without taking at least 60 hours to line up options and have a 48 hour poll.

Oh, I get it... have everyone produce their orders, and have trade take up 36 hour blocks per round of negotiations... still doesn't sit right. SaaM has shown that multiple trades on the same turn CAN work out.

I'd encourage the Governors to set their queues for up to 15 turns in advance (though it isn't likely we'd ever go that far)

 

[gert-janl]

Why is this a private poll?

Because this way, it provides a possibility for everyone to cast their votes privately, while there is a possibility of publicly announcing your opinion in the thread. Remember that there is no law yet recommending/demanding private/public polls. I just took the IMO most supported format.

 

[donsig]

Why is this a private poll?

So Ravensfire can vote.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Because this way, it provides a possibility for everyone to cast their votes privately, while there is a possibility of publicly announcing your opinion in the thread. Remember that there is no law yet recommending/demanding private/public polls. I just took the IMO most supported format.

While you are indeed correct in your interpretation of the law(or lack thereof ), I am a bit surprised that our own Chief Justice would buck tradition for the first time in quite awhile. Granted, a public poll is not the default option, but it has been the dominant format for policy/ratification polling in this game.

Please keep this in mind in the future, lest you find even more work on your desk to make this official.

donsig, comin' right up!

 

[KCCrusader]

Quite frankly I don't see a need for it.

 

[KCCrusader]

and it is a strange move away from past procedure.

 

[gert-janl]

While you are indeed correct in your interpretation of the law(or lack thereof ), I am a bit surprised that our own Chief Justice would buck tradition for the first time in quite awhile. Granted, a public poll is not the default option, but it has been the dominant format for policy/ratification polling in this game.

The tradition I know of, in regard to public polls, consists of heavy discussion whether or not to use public polls. I am bucking that tradition, by trying to please both camps. The pro-privates can vote privately, while the pro-publics can announce their votes in the thread.

 

[gert-janl]

By the way: the poll has reached the required quorum of 12 voters. Therefore the poll result will be considered legal.

 

[ravensfire]

So Ravensfire can vote.

Actually, so I can vote other than abstain!

And it is appreciated.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I voted no becaused procedure wasn't followed. Not only by Blackheart, but by the Judiciary as a whole. Plus, our esteemed CJ felt it neccessary to break with tradition in making this a private poll. All other Legislative polls this game worked fine as public polls on public issues. It's too bad we now have to cower in the shadows again...

 

[Strider]

No, as it was said earlier it is to inflexible. Also, there has been nothing of the like in past demogames, it is only in this one that we are starting to have problems with this issue? Why all of a sudden are we having a problem with it? There is nothing wrong with our laws in this circumstance, it's a problem with our leaders.

We put are trust into our leaders, but they seem unable to accept that trust. They seem to believe that there incapable of deciding, even alittle bit, of the will of the people.

 

[gert-janl]

I voted no becaused procedure wasn't followed. Not only by Blackheart, but by the Judiciary as a whole. Plus, our esteemed CJ felt it neccessary to break with tradition in making this a private poll. All other Legislative polls this game worked fine as public polls on public issues. It's too bad we now have to cower in the shadows again...

Can you please specify where the procedures haven't been followed?

 

[MOTH]

Can you please specify where the procedures haven't been followed?

Honorable Chief Justice,
I would not presume to speak for citizen Cyc. IMHO, I believe that blackheart had (at the time) failed to follow the procedure outlined in Code of Laws section I. Specifically, there was no proposed poll posted by blackheart at the bottom of the discussion thread. If your post was considered the 'post at the botttom' (as indicated in the judiciary thread) then there was no third within 24 hours as Ashburnham's post came slightly after the 24 hour period had passed. It was also unclear at the time if Ashburnham's post reffered to the last proposal or to your post. Ashburnham later clarified this but withdrew his third at that time. please note that this withdrawal was made well before any of the judiciary had entered comments in the judiciary thread

Therefore the procedure followed by blackheart and yourself (acting as a citizen) was irregular at best and it could argueable be said that the procedure in CoL Section I was not followed.

The argument that the court failed to follow their own procedures for review of proposed law is weak. If you accept that the procedure (CoL Section I) was not followed then it follows that the judiciary fail to follow its own procedures. Specifically court procedure 7.B.1 - "... after following procedure for proposing ammendments and laws". It could be argued that the court is responsibile for reviewing the discussion and realizing that that procedure was not followed. The argument is strengthened by the fact that I had posted in the judiciary thread that I felt procedure was not followed and that a third was not properly obtained should have led each of the judiciary to review the discussion thread.

It would only have cost a few more days to have all the i's dotted and t's crossed.

 

[Cyc]

Thank you, MOTH. You have now shown me that you are not only proficient in Military matters, Gubernatorial responsibilities, and downright logical Civ playing, but also are a good researcher who can keep your eye on the ball. You might want to consider running for a Judicial position at some time.

gert-janl, I'm dissappointed. I held respect for your judicial skill in DG4, when you recruited me, but that started to waver when it appeared to me that your personal feelings were leading you in DG5CC1. I let it go, as personal feelings were strong throughout this forum. But I recognized the irregularities in Court procedure for this legislative poll even before it was brought to your attention. I didn't need someone to tell me. All the procedures are written down and are fairly easy to follow. A word of advice if you're re-elected to the Judiciary... anytime a Judicial action is presented to the Court, go to the procedures and look at the first one dealing with that action, do not move onto the second procedure until the first is completely fulfilled. Follow this routine all the way through the legal action. Sticking to this routine should keep you on track. I offered my help at the begining of the Term and the offer still stands. But with the procedures written down at the begining of this thread, anyone can follow the paper trail. If you need me to "specify where the procedures haven't been followed", then you might want to look for a different position to fill.

Ex-CJ Cyc

 

[RegentMan]

No, as it was said earlier it is to inflexible. Also, there has been nothing of the like in past demogames, it is only in this one that we are starting to have problems with this issue? Why all of a sudden are we having a problem with it? There is nothing wrong with our laws in this circumstance, it's a problem with our leaders.

We put are trust into our leaders, but they seem unable to accept that trust. They seem to believe that there incapable of deciding, even alittle bit, of the will of the people.

If you're refering to the public poll question, remember that they weren't around pre-DGIV.

 

[gert-janl]

I must admit that MOTH has a point when stating that the obtaining of seconds and thirds might not have been covered well enough. However this proposal has 11 voters in favor so obtainig seconds/thirds would have been only a matter of time.
This provision in the CoL has been made to ensure that a law proposal wouldn't go all the way through the judiciary, only to find out that there are no, or just one, supporter. But as I already said, you are right when pointing to this. I apologise.

For now...the poll is closed, and with a vote of 11 in favor 16 against, and 1 abstention this proposal failed adoption