CoL Discussion: Section D(Legislative Branch)

[Donovan Zoi]

Here is Section D of the DG2 Code of Laws. This section deals with the Legislative Branch. Please propose any modifications that will make for a better ruleset, as well as identify any passages that are no longer needed.

Please note that due to a recent poll, Governors will remain a part of the Legislative Branch, and therefore shall not be included in this discussion.

D.   The Legislative Branch 
   1.   The Senate (Governors) 
       A.   Provinces 
           1.   Provincial borders are geography based and will be approved 
           by the Congress. 
           2.   A province may contain any number of cities. 
           3.   Provincial borders shall be defined well ahead of expansion. 
       B.   Each province will have a deputy. The Deputy Governor assumes all 
       powers and responsibilities of the provincial office during the absence of 
       the governor. 
       C.   A governor organizes the production (building queues) of the cities in a 
       province. 
           1.   A governor’s build queues may be preempted under certain 
           circumstances: 
               A.   Presidential decree supported by Administrative 
               Council Vote. 
               B.   Military Leader decree during invasion of the province. 
               C.   Cultural Leader decree for cultural border expansion 
               or defense. 
               D.   A governor organizes the tile use in his province. 
                   1.   If a tile is unused, it may be used by a city in a neighboring 
                    province. 
               E.   A governor organizes tile development in his province. 
               F.   The Domestic Leader is the governor of all cities that lack a
                provincial governor. 
                   1.   When a defined province grows to 3 cities during an election 
                    term, a provincial governor may be appointed. 
   2.   The Congress (Citizens) 
       A.   Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika. 
   3.   Legislative Votes 
       A.   Poll mechanics 
           1.   Congressional and Senatorial polls will be posted by the 
           Judiciary upon completion of Judicial Review. 
               A.   Congressional polls are in anonymous responder 
               format (standard Forum poll option). 
               B.   Senatorial polls are in open response format (normal 
               thread, no Forum poll option). 
           2.   Proposal must be in Yes/No/Abstain format. 
           3.   Polls will stay open until: 
               A.   All votes have been cast, or; 
               B.   A quorum has responded and further votes cannot 
               affect the outcome of the vote, or; 
               C.   The posted poll closing time has been reached. 
                   1.   Minimum duration to run a poll is 48 hours. 
           4.   The quorum for changes in the Code of Laws is 1/2 of the 
           active census. 
           5.   A 2/3 majority of support is required to adopt or alter a law.

 

[Cyc]

I would like to see 1.A changed to say that Borders are based on tile count as they were in DG1 with 5 or 6 cities in each Province.

1.B can say each Province shall have a Lt. Governor appointed by the Governor.

1.C.1.D should be moved out to be 1.C.2. This would include 1.C1.E (which would then become 1.C.2.A. This of course would have 1.C.1.F move up to become 1.C.1.D.

Remove 3.A.5

 

[ravensfire]

Remove section 1.C.1 entirely except:
-- Promote 1.C.1.D,E,F to under 1.C

-- Ravensfire

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

again, one thing i really miss in the DG is the opportunity for the local citizens to be able to manage their own cities. therefore, i'd either like this formulation to be changed:

       C.   A governor organizes the production (building queues) of the cities in a 
       province.

or add this:

"G. Local opinion in the cities has to be followed.

1. citizens residing in the province may post bills for alternative instructions regarding the management of their home city.
2. this includes worker requests (stated in the turnchat instructions thread), buildques, labour placement.
3. for this bill to be recognised a legal instruction, it has to:
a. be clearly stated in the provincial thread at least 12 hours before the turnchat.
b. have the consent of a majority of the concerned citizens (stated by the citizen in a post in the provincial thread) at least 6 hours before the turnchat.
4. if a passed bill has not been posted by the govenor in the turnchat instructions thread 1 hour before the turnchat, any involved citizen may post the passed instruction in its original form in the turnchat instructions thread.
5. the local opinion as stated in a passed bill can still be preempted by the excecutive branch as stated in D.1.C.1.A, B, and C.

into this:

                      1.   A governor’s build queues may be preempted under certain 
           circumstances: 
               A.   Presidential decree supported by Administrative 
               Council Vote. 
               B.   Military Leader decree during invasion of the province. 
               C.   Cultural Leader decree for cultural border expansion 
               or defense. 
               D.   A governor organizes the tile use in his province. 
                   1.   If a tile is unused, it may be used by a city in a neighboring 
                    province. 
               E.   A governor organizes tile development in his province. 
               F.   The Domestic Leader is the governor of all cities that lack a
                provincial governor. 
                   1.   When a defined province grows to 3 cities during an election 
                    term, a provincial governor may be appointed.

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

we also need to add that the excecutive (domestic) should be able to force any city to change its production to a settler.

 

[DaveShack]

I think some version of 1.C.1 A-C (provision for production override) should remain, but would prefer a majority vote of the senate or a majority of congress (a simple poll with 1/2 census quorum) to override.

 

[ravensfire]

Mayors. Such an interesting concept - allow a citizen to assist in the running of an individual city.

From the brief amount of research I've done, Mayors appear to have started with DG3. At least the 3 DG2 provincial threads I looked through didn't have any. Very possible though - we had a lot of cities in that game ...

As an official entity, Mayors aren't really mentioned anywhere. In fact, they ought to be regarded as one of the most successful examples of how things should have been under the DG3 ruleset. Moreover, the presence of Mayors led directly to the logic used in a Judicial Review, that officials had the right to delegate duties to others.

Mayoral offices ought to remain as such - delegated by the Governors and serve to advise the Governors. Under no circumstances should the instructions from a non-elected official be considered superior to that of an elected official.

Mayors are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, and thus do not have official duties, responsibilities or powers. They should derive their existance from the Governors of their province. By tradition, Mayors transcend Governors, remaining even as the office of Governor changes from one citizen to another. By tradition, only poor performance has led to the removal of a Mayor.

Let's keep it that way. It has worked perfectly in the past - no fancy regulations, just help the Governor in that little part of the province.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

I fully agree with you, ravensfire. During my brief stint as governor of Quirnial Province last game, I was able to bring several citizens into the game by giving them mayorships, which was key in getting new citizens involved in the game and is an excellent starting position. Zorven and deshelbr are two key examples of citizens who got their start in the DG as mayors in Quirnial Province in that term. I see the involvement of new citizens as the primary reason for the existence of mayorships in the first place. Yet I'm sure that if new citizens had to go to the trouble of choosing a location, holding an (intra-city) election, and then being proclaimed mayor until a new election was held. I also think that if we do that, it would add all sorts of added complications that all citizens, and new citizens especially, wouldn't want to have to deal with. Though it is true that the local governments may work well in one or two cases, most cities won't have a functional one at all.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am against on all of these changes. For one thing this system has been working since I have first started the demogame and I wish to see that this Part of the consitution to remain untouched.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I am against on all of these changes. For one thing this system has been working since I have first started the demogame and I wish to see that this Part of the consitution to remain untouched.

If it aint broke, dont fix it.

CG - we HAVE to change parts of this - read through this section carefully.

First - we don't have a Cultural Leader any more.
Second - we don't have Senatorial polls (that provision was removed from the Constitution)
Third - I really don't like overrides - convince me with logic, not a vote

Another change noted - remove 3.A.1.B

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Ravensfire - We dont need to change this, Unless you convice me otherwise. I am still dead set against on changing this.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
Ravensfire - We dont need to change this, Unless you convice me otherwise. I am still dead set against on changing this.

Then tell me please,

Where is the Cultural Leader position defined?
-- We eliminated that position, remember?
Where are Senatorial Polls defined?
-- We removed the Senatorial approval of new laws, remember?

Convinced?

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by ravensfire


Then tell me please,

Where is the Cultural Leader position defined?
-- We eliminated that position, remember?
Where are Senatorial Polls defined?
-- We removed the Senatorial approval of new laws, remember?

Convinced?

-- Ravensfire

Convinced? No. Am I turning into a writing proffessor looking for long argumentive statement posts? Yes .

Show me where we removed the senatoral laws and the Culture Leader Possition. Then I will change my conservitive view point

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by CivGeneral


Convinced? No. Am I turning into a writing proffessor looking for long argumentive statement posts? Yes .

Show me where we removed the senatoral laws and the Culture Leader Possition. Then I will change my conservitive view point

CG - you've got to be kidding me.

Refer to the following discussions:
-- Article D of the Constitution - note the leaders
-- Article I of the Constitution - note removal of Senatorial approval

I will admit that I went a bit overboard, especially with Senatorial polls. However, I do expect that a person commenting on this process has some understanding of what's going on. Your first post contained "...I wish to see that this Part of the consitution to remain untouched."

First, this is not the Constitution, it's the Code of Laws. Second, the very fact that the Constitution has changed results in nullities in the document.

No, I am not expecting anyone to turn into a writing professor. I do, however, expect that a person be willing to do just a little bit of research. That's all. In this case, review the Articles of the Constitution that this supports to see what is there. Although not finalized - it's pretty close.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Sorry D'yer Mak'er, but I have to agree with Ravensfire on your proposal. Mayors have worked best as an informal part of the game, and until we reach a point where we have 100+ citizens it should probably remain that way.

Actually, most of what you are proposing can still be done as it has in the past: with simple communication between a governor and his mayors.

Now, that said, I would like to present an interesting concept:

Since Governors will hopefully have the support of a staff of mayors, is there really any reason for a Gubernatorial deputy? Perhaps we can make it so that the Mayor of the largest city takes over during the Governor's absence, or something like that.

Basically, I am looking for ways to put a fresh perspective on the Legislative Branch. We can do this by:

1. Limiting provinces to 4-5 cities. More provinces=more Governors.
2. Get rid of the Gubernatorial deputy position, or grant that position to the "highest ranking" mayor(determined by?).
3. Give the Senate something to vote on(besides just the science slider). Let's make the checks and balances in this game exciting to witness!
4. Vice-President gets tie-breaking vote in Senate(would not work under current system as this could actually undermine the Presidency, seeing as the VP is traditionally the second place vote getter for that position and therefore a rival).

That's all I have for now. There is a big picture I see that reveals itself to me in small pieces, so I don't know if there's anything here or not. Let me know.

 

[ravensfire]

Interesting idea, DZ (referring to #2). Size, then age of city as a tiebreaker.

#1 - I'm all for small province size.

#3 - The Senate should control both the Slider and the cash budget. Pop rushes should be at the discretion of the Mayor/Governor. If we do this, we will need a provision allowing for enough at-large Governors to reach a minimum size of 3. Once we reach 3 provinces, the at-large position is eliminated. I would go so far as to say that as we create the first three provinces, the at-large Governors assume control of them, by some predetermined order. This will give us an easy transition into the first three provinces.

#4 - Sounds good to me.

-- Ravensfire

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

first of all, thanks for putting down your thughts and constructive criticism in this discussion. only through discussion real progress can be made. having that said, i'm still convinced by the simplicity and the superiority of my system... let me clearify this idea some.

first of all, i don't want to use the old informal one-mayor-per-city-system system here. in this system, that would lead to an undemocratic situation, where those people appointed mayors would have too much influence. what i'm suggesting is that the citizen's right of movement (to reside in one city at a time) to be used as a mandate to make the citizen (the deme) the basic political unit.

the idea is that this system enables the citizens to form their own political touch to their home city. this will create local forums where cities will form their own subcultures.

larger cities will draw more people than smaller ones, because choosing to place their mandate there (reside in the city) will have a greater impact on the game - you will be able to influence the production of a large city. but, as more and more people chooses to live in a large city, the less influence one person can make - the citizens will have to agree on how the city is to be managed to achieve the required "consent of the majority of the citizens" for the instructions the city makes. this is when the citizens will move to other (smaller) cities where they can have more influence - 1 out of 3 citizens in a city is a "heavier" vote than 1 out of 5 in another city. this way, people can choose their level of participation. those who like to influence the game will try to live in as large cities with as few members as possible, while those who are new can limit their influence by either choose to reside in a small city (low production - small responsibility) or in a city with a lot of citizens (low influence - small responsibility). this way we will have a dynamic, self-regulating, democratic system where the power lies close to the citizen.

translating this into the old DG3 world would probably mean that Gorina, Noshuret, Memphis, Aureus and Iron Hills probably would be cities where more than persons descides to reside, either because of a lively culture (like that of gorina), dynamic gamplay and challange, or a high influence through high production (or food) (Iron Hills, Aureus). we would have average participation in the middle-sized capitoline and aventine cities, and the outer cities (far quirinal, esquiline, conquered territories etc. ) would probably mostly have no participation and therefore ruled entirely by govenors or domestic.

perhaps some large cities decide to rely on a skilled ruler (mabye the population of gorina would give cyc authority over the city) where on other places different personal agendas would require discussions, voting, and perhaps elections within the cities... the threat of having outer powers take control of the city (govenor or domestic manages the city of no local opinion can organize itself) should be enough to encourage willingness to meet an agreement among the locals...

please note that with the current formulation, the described situation would be the most chaotic one we could possibly achieve. this is an enthusiastic scenario. in pratcie some people won't be interested in this and a lot of cities will stand empty - like in DG3. we will probably have about the same situation as we have had in the past games - without one tragic problem:

Actually, most of what you are proposing can still be done as it has in the past: with simple communication between a governor and his mayors.

you are completely right about this, DZ. but the classic problem here isabsenteeism - when the locals are beeing more active than the elected govenor. there have been situations where:

1. locals have posted requests which has been ignored
2. the govenor has not posted the TC instructions at all
3. elected govenor has left the demogame after beeing elected
   [/list=1]
   we can not pretend as these problems do not exist. people who participate on a local level need some certanity that their efforts are not wasted.
   
   then you say "we already have the PI process"? yes, the PI process i a good step in the right direction, but there are two problems here. first, there is no clear definition of what should be considered absenteeism. true, complete absenteeism is easy to define, but above that level is a large grey area. second, a legal process takes time, and by the time that is over the damage has already been made.
   
   but, again, this proposal is not just a way to counter absenteeism. in it's purest form it will enreich the game by enabling citizens to create a local form of identity. and to counter this local power we always have the excecutive branch, with its more national perspective, there with the ability to preempt the city management in some special cases (D.1.A.1) such as military, expansive, infrastructural, cultural, and economic needs.
   
   thank you

 

[ravensfire]

Wow - great post there! You've given me a bit to think about. Local elections it seems, but with a small twist.

In the meantime - I will address one of your concerns - absenteeism. Now, if you'd just take that train of thought, and move it down to this thread, that would be great ....

Must ponder ..... (And, that tafeta dress would look just lovely on Mrs. Hamster over there. Shut up Pinky!)

-- Ravensfire

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

haha it took a while to write that down...(and english is not my first language so it's time x 2)
well, if you liked that, perhaps i could interest you in some more one-hour-posts?

gonna try to figure out something about that absenteeism stuff too...

 

[Cyc]

Actually, D'yer Mak'er is onto something here, I just think he's going about it in an off hand way.

D'yer Mak'er your posts drift in and out on different subjects (so it's hard for me to pinpoint some of the relevance), but you seem to tie them all into the right of a citizen to determine the production of the city they reside in. In a way, I think you're right. And I believe citizens should be vocal about what goes on in their hometown. In Gorina, I really appreciated all the extra work that Rik Meleet did PLUS all his input on his personal feelings about how things should be done. I believe I only disagreed with him once (at that time, I let him know why in a post in the city thread). It was really nice to hear what someone else thought could be done in the city I was Mayor of. And believe me, I always let my Governor know what I thought was best for Gorina. That was my job. If the Governor had ignored me or had gone AWOL, I would have raised hell, as I did in DG1 AND DG2.

Leaders must conform to the will of the people, but Governing Provinces is a tricky fence to stradle. It's a Governor's job to determine what is best for a Province, period. But it is also a Mayor's job to oversee his city. I believe the best way to handle this situation is that the Governor must respond to a Mayor's request for build queues. If he agrees with them, then the Governor posts them. But if the Governor doesn't agree with the Mayor and plans on not posting those BQ's, he must post (as soon as possible) his reasons for not allowing them.

It's always a good idea to keep your constituents happy if you want to be re-elected.

So now it's post #20 and no one has addressed the items I posted in post #2.