Constituional Amendments.

[classical_hero]

Here is the original Article O

[B]Article O[/B]
Treaties and agreements with foreign nations may be ratified by
Fanatica with a poll open for minimum 48 hours. A simple
majority of voters is required to ratify the treaty or agreement.
 §1. In matters of extremely urgent national security (ex. impending
     invasion), the Administrative Council may chose to sign the treaty,
     making it binding for all of Fanatikou. However, the Chief Jutice
     would have to verify that is was indeed a matter of extremely
     urgent national security.

Here are som changes that I would make.

[B]Article O[/B]
Treaties and agreements with foreign nations may be ratified by
Fanatica with a poll open for [B][S]minimum[/S] 48 hours or once the number of
voters is equal to the Active assembly, as decribed in Article K §1,
whichever comes first.[/B]  A simple majority of voters is required to ratify
the treaty or agreement.
 §1.  In matters of extremely urgent national security (ex. impending
     invasion), the Administrative Council may chose to sign the treaty,
     making it binding for all of Fanatikou. However, the Chief Jutice
     would have to verify that is was indeed a matter of extremely
     urgent national security.
[B]§2.  Declaration of war shall be considered an agreement.[/B]

All the changes are in bold. I have given you the original first and then the Amendment. Changing the requirement for the legality of polls will also be needed for Article L. We must keep the same requirement for Amending the Constitution as prescribed in Article K, §2. The addition of §2 in Article O should help so that we know how we are defining a declaration of war. Please discuss this.

 

[Goonie]

Looks good to be.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

No, I think the 48 hour rule sould still be in place, so that both sides can present their case. After all, we can change votes. However, I do like the addition about DoW

 

[Rik Meleet]

EMP: that is not a realistic approach; we are bound by a "play in 24 hours" ISDG-rule. I try to distribute the save as soon as we get it and start a thread as soon as possible. Then I usually wait for 15 to 20 hours before the turn is played. That gives the citizens about 15 to 20 hours to check, discuss the current situation and launch quick polls. That is the situation we face and are bound by and that is what the constitution should take into account.

A quick poll is the only possible way between receiving and sending the saves to get guidance. Important issues do take longer and can be discussed while the other teams are playing.

Strategy discussions and polls are long-term items and can have a longer dead-line, but quick -or emergency- polls need to be allowed to be short.

 

[Pegster]

looks good

 

[rcoutme]

I would add one more article:
3. The number of minimum votes needed to pass a treaty will be posted in xxx

 

[Provolution]

Well, very brilliant clause about the declaration of War. Most likely, we will never use it, as we only need Brazuca down to end this.

 

[Hygro]

I think it should not be the number of active assembly, but when there's a clear majority of votes one way or another in the active assembly (so if the active is 17 people, and 10 votes come in one way with 5 the other, we don't need to wait for the last two folk)

 

[classical_hero]

I would add one more article:
3. The number of minimum votes needed to pass a treaty will be posted in xxx

Maybe we could add a clause saying that 2/3 of the the votes must be in favour before we can pass it.

 

[DaveShack]

I don't like the idea of a blanket statement that declarations of war are not an agreement. Instead, have a poll on the strategy (war with C3B) with some basic conditions (no earlier than 5 turns from now, no later than 15; when we have 15 knights; etc.) and leave the exact timing up to the turnplayer.

We had discussions days in advance about hoping that C3B would leave their warrior vulnerable to our JT, as that was pretty much the only way we could expect to trigger our GA. It should not have come as a surprise to anyone that we followed through with the agreed upon strategy.

 

[Provolution]

We already polled this to Death, and City of God got a 70 % majority, with the needed build up time in advance, as a result of Turn 125 elections. This is not DG5 or DG6, so we will use the CoG support poll winning 70 % support AND the war poll gaining more than 60 % support and finally the decisive war action intiation poll winning 14-2 votes.
However, we need to discuss and poll the follow up strategy of CoG as soon as the battle has taken place aroung turn 143-147. The outcome of this will also impact our elections.

 

[classical_hero]

I don't like the idea of a blanket statement that declarations of war are not an agreement. Instead, have a poll on the strategy (war with C3B) with some basic conditions (no earlier than 5 turns from now, no later than 15; when we have 15 knights; etc.) and leave the exact timing up to the turnplayer.

We had discussions days in advance about hoping that C3B would leave their warrior vulnerable to our JT, as that was pretty much the only way we could expect to trigger our GA. It should not have come as a surprise to anyone that we followed through with the agreed upon strategy.

If you read it properly, the amendment says that declarations of shall be considered an agreement, not what you said.

 

[RegentMan]

The wording of the declaration of war is very blunt. I find it humorous for some reason. Perhaps it could be written a bit more subtly, as in a real world document?

 

[DaveShack]

If you read it properly, the amendment says that declarations of shall be considered an agreement, not what you said.

Did you maybe have a "not" in an early version, and then remove it? Or maybe I meant that I don't like declarations of war being agreements.

Anyway, the principle behind the remainder of my statement still stands, the decision to go to war should be strategic and the subject of a long-period poll, and the tactical timing of when to go to war should be left up to the DP, within previously specified boundaries.

 

[classical_hero]

The wording of the declaration of war is very blunt. I find it humorous for some reason. Perhaps it could be written a bit more subtly, as in a real world document?

The reason it was so blunt, was to stop any confusion. It is immpossible to find a loophole with this.

@DS. No. The amendment never had the word" not in it. I am just as about what you said.

I propose that we forward this amendment for voting.

 

[RegentMan]

But a declaration of war isn't an agreement. We need to write a whole new article that outlines whatever procedure that we want. For example:

Article P
In order to declare war upon another nation, a poll that has been open for a minimum of 48 hours must have a majority of "pro-war" votes.

 

[rcoutme]

How about..."A Declaration of War must be voted upon (with a simple majority passing it), with a poll open for at least 48 hours, one turn before the Declaration of War is declared unless our nation is attacked or a 48 hour poll has come out with a unanimous verdict."

 

[classical_hero]

We could have a whole new article that is solely about declarations of war.

Article P.
Declaration of War.
War can only be declared by Fanatica with a poll open for minimum
48 hours or once the number of voters is equal to the Active assembly,
as decribed in Article K §1, whichever comes first.

That would mean Article O §2 will be scraped.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

I don't see what the problem is with just makeing the poll a little bit before the turn comes.

 

[NeoDemocrat]

I don't see what the problem is with just makeing the poll a little bit before the turn comes.

Good Point