CoL Discussion: Section H(Appointed Positions)

[Cyc]

Hey, Ravensfire, I'll take some fries with that shake! The poll does not say deputies. Can can twist it to what you want to say, but the people voted to allow appointments. There was no qualifier. Read 'em and weep.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
Hey, Ravensfire, I'll take some fries with that shake! The poll does not say deputies. Can can twist it to what you want to say, but the people voted to allow appointments. There was no qualifier. Read 'em and weep.

Ahh, so we ignore context then? Cool!

Let us then look at the poll exactly as writte, as that's how you want to do it.

The question is: Should we allow appointments in DG4.

We said yes.

Thus, we allow appointments in DG4.

Under your standard of interpretation, we allow appointments in DG4. The people have spoken! Appointments are not required! Aleluhah!

Oh wait, if you get the context of the poll, you learn that yes, it was to require appointments for deputies. But the context doesn't matter, now does it?

But, if we ignore the context again, then there is nothing wrong with my proposal, now is there? The poll only says that we allow appointments, nothing about requiring them.

Here's your order!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

The fries are cold, ravensfire. Figures. Why would we vote to allow appointments and then write laws ignoring them? gimme some ketchup too!

 

[Cyc]

As Section H deals with appointed positions, I believe separate Sections should be drawn up to regulate the areas of absenteeism, the removal process of Leaders, positions one is eligible for etc., etc. In fact, Section H should only be dealing with appointed positions. We don't need to cloud the issue by bringing in other matters. Keep them separate. Therefore I'd like to propose this wording as opposed to Ravenfire's.

H. Vacant Positions
1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall be filled via appointment by the President.
a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the appointment. Should a majority of citizens voting in the poll reject the candidate, another citizen must be chosen.

2. Deputies
a. Each elected office in the Executive and Legislative branch shall have a Deputy. This Deputy is appointed by the office holder.
1. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the appointment. Should a majority of citizens voting in the poll reject the candidate, another citizen must be chosen.
b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.
c. A citizen may only be appointed to one Deputy position.

3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by appointing the deputy for
that position as Leader.
a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a triumvirate vote between the President and the other two Justices determining and approving the replacement.
1. Any citizen may request a refusal poll within 24 hours of the appointement.
Should a majority of citizens voting in the poll reject the candidate, another must be chosen.

 

[ravensfire]

H.1. needs a refusal poll subsection.

 

[ravensfire]

Change 3.a to include the other two members of the Judiciary.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Sorry for the spamming - missed a few thoughts.

Need to add deputy restrictions:
-- 1 deputy position per person
-- No elected official may be a deputy

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Done. Your 3.a request is already covered, though.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
Done. Your 3.a request is already covered, though.

Sorry - I was unclear. The appointment process should be made by the President AND the other two members of the Judiciary acting in concert. I want to make sure that anyone appointed to the bench is going to be capable of the job. While a bad official can make things harder within the Civ III game, a bad judicial member can make things harder within the Demo Game!

I just don't trust the refusal poll to handle something like that.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

So what you want is the Triumphant (or whatever the term is) vote between the Prez and the other two Justices?

 

[ravensfire]

Triumvirate! (yes, I did look it up!)

Yes, for the sole purpose of choosing the appointee.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Done. Comments?

 

[ravensfire]

Slightly modified version, simplifying verbage of refusal poll (see poll section of CoS).

H. Vacant Positions
  1. Leader positions that remain unfilled after an election shall 
     be filled via appointment by the President. 
    a. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the 
       appointment. 
       
  2. Deputies
    a. Each elected office in the Executive and Legislative branch 
       shall have a Deputy. This Deputy is appointed by the office 
       holder.
      1. Any citizen may post a refusal poll within 24 hours of the 
         appointment. 
    b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.
    c. A citizen may only be appointed to one Deputy position.

  3. Leader positions that become vacant mid-term shall be filled by 
     appointing the deputy for that position as Leader.
    a. A mid-term vacancy in the Judiciary shall be filled by a 
       triumvirate vote between the President and the other two 
       Justices determining and approving the replacement.
      1. Any citizen may request a refusal poll within 24 hours of 
         the appointement.

Poll will go up in 2004.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by ravensfire

    b. No elected official may be appointed a Deputy.

I am Strongly against this section of the rules. I beleve we should take out this section of the proposal. There is no harm in having the Leader being both a Leader and a Deputy.

In the past there were no troubles with leaders being both an elected offical and a deputy.

 

[Peri]

There is no harm but it limits participation so it is important to keep that clause in.

 

[GenMarshall]

How does it limits participation? Personaly I dont see that it limits participation.

 

[Peri]

Well since Person A is already part of the government, making him a deputy of another office means that Person B misses out.
Person A holds 2 positions but Person B holds none. Doing it the RF way means that both Person A and Person B hold one position each. Therefore greater participation.

 

[GenMarshall]

Personaly I dont see a problem having a Leader also being a deputy, so long as the limit that a persion can only hold 1 deputy possition. Regardless if he/she is a citizen or an elected offical.

 

[ravensfire]

CG,

I have four issues with allowing those already in leadership positions to be the deputy of another.

First, as Peri as eloquently stated, it limits participation. The continual influx of new players is key to both the survival of the Demogame, and its ability to hold the interest of existing players.

Second, we have altered the duties of the deputy to explictly allow the posting of instructions under some circumstances. With this new duty, it is entirely possible that one person may be posting instructions for two different departments. The idea of the multiple departments is to both seperate duties and allow multiple viewpoints on issues. Both would defeated by the above situation.

Third, the position of deputy is now more than a meaningless post, there just to make a person feel better, and take over in the unlikely event we lose a leader. The deputy must monitor everything going on in the department, and be able to post competent and thoughtful instructions should the leader fail to do so. That takes time - we need deputies capable of focusing on the goal at hand.

Finally, the second main duty for a deputy is to assume the office should it become vacant. If the deputy is also a leader, they would assume the office, and then immediately have to resign from an office. Ludicrous! Madness! We have a deputy, that can't do one of the two main duties of a deputy? That's foolish, CG.

Barring more support for allowing a leader to be the deputy of another position, I will poll this using the verbage in post 33 tonight.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Furiey]

Having a Leader who is also a deputy can limit participation. For example, as a newbie, if I eventually try for an elected office, I am very unlikely to get in on a first attempt (even if I have been posting my views, active as a mayor etc so that people know me). My first step towards an elected position is most likely to be as a deputy. However if you allow leaders to be deputies, then they are likely to be better qualified and better known than I am, so are more likely to get the deputy position. I am therefore only likely to get even a deputy position if none of the leaders want it, hence fewer opportunities for me to become involved.

If no one else is interested in being deputy however, I would prefer to see that position filled by someone who is also a leader (perhaps on a temporary basis?) rather than the deputy position remain empty. Not being able to be both keeps it simple though.

PS: This is NOT saying that I want a deputy position now, but there were people in the last election who were trying to get elected for the first time.