Constitution Poll - Government Structure

[MOTH]

Unless this changes dramatically in the next 12 hours, this is just way to close. Personaly, as a spectrum vote, I could live with Provolution's structure.

Maybe the right thing to do is to leave the constitution vague enough that we could try the alternatives in some terms, but also allow us to easily go back to the Traditional model if its not working well.

 

[Black_Hole]

im not a fan of spectrum votes escpecially when is isnt specified beforehand that the vote will be a spectrum one... now if this were an election of course the person with 1 more vote would win, so why does that not extend to other polls?

 

[Strider]

im not a fan of spectrum votes escpecially when is isnt specified beforehand that the vote will be a spectrum one... now if this were an election of course the person with 1 more vote would win, so why does that not extend to other polls?

Because there not elections

 

[Black_Hole]

Because there not elections

are you positive?
what I am saying is that people certainly would have voted different if they need these poll was on a spectrum, we cant just add that at the end

 

[Cyc]

We shouldn't be honoring these polls anyway. We jumped off the track of creating mock polls and fine-tuning them until they were ready for presentation. Now look at the mess of polls we have, each with a variety of problems.

 

[Black_Hole]

We shouldn't be honoring these polls anyway. We jumped off the track of creating mock polls and fine-tuning them until they were ready for presentation. Now look at the mess of polls we have, each with a variety of problems.

we shouldnt, but they were created by a mod... thus they "OFFICIAL"

 

[Black_Hole]

the poll is closed, do we:
A. Accept the results
B. Discuss options and Repoll
C. Just decide on anarchy

Just warning everyone that if do repoll then our constitution could be finished at the earliest early march and thats if everyone is working hard

We are going to need a good chief justice first term...

 

[MOTH]

There are two things I would be willing to accept as a compromise:
1. Provolution's structure.
2. Term 1 try alternative structure and automatically revert to traditional structure for term 2. We would discuss and decide on how well this worked during term 2 where we would decide if we would return to the alternative structure.

 

[Black_Hole]

There are two things I would be willing to accept as a compromise:
1. Provolution's structure.
2. Term 1 try alternative structure and automatically revert to traditional structure for term 2. We would discuss and decide on how well this worked during term 2 where we would decide if we would return to the alternative structure.

i think it would be fairest to limit ourselves to striders plan and daveshacks plan... Provos plan came in with little votes(no offense)
switching would be a mess and a complete chaotic government
RF tried testing it, but time was short(and it is even shorter now)

edit: started an overall discussion about the constitution:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112193

 

[Chieftess]

Yes, why pick Provo's plan when it got one of the fewest votes? We should be finding a compremise between Strider's and Daveshack's plans, and perhaps some articles we're already discussing. Let's start putting this puppy together! (be it a Golden Retriever, German Shorthaired Pointer, Terrier... err, enough of the dog show. ).

 

[MOTH]

I pick Provo's plan as a compromise. I would be totally unhappy playing an entire DG with the traditional government given that I don't have C3C and my involvement would be limited. Provo's plans and Dave Shack's plans both allow greater participation for those that cannot load the save.

Or maybe I'll just run for president and solicit DPs to play the save.

 

[Black_Hole]

I pick Provo's plan as a compromise. I would be totally unhappy playing an entire DG with the traditional government given that I don't have C3C and my involvement would be limited. Provo's plans and Dave Shack's plans both allow greater participation for those that cannot load the save.

Or maybe I'll just run for president and solicit DPs to play the save.

but his plan got the second least votes!!!
Wait why dont we use "DG5 with minor modifications"?

 

[MOTH]

Cheiftess proposed finding a compromise between the 2 big vote getters. All I am saying is that I think Provo's proposal already is a compromise that people on both sides could be willing to live with.

Perhaps we should really have a second poll asking "What types of government would be acceptable?" I would expect that DaveShacks would still get about 9, and that Stiders would still get about 8, and I would expect about 50% of the people from either extreme would pick Provo's as acceptable as well, pushing the numbers of the "middle" option up to about 13.

Just stating MHO - Mr. Compromise

 

[mhcarver]

Just a suggestion but why not have a runoff between Strider and Dave Shacks plans since they were the top 2 vote getters?

 

[Provolution]

Indeed, the socalled "Provos Plan" is actually a agglomeration of all the posters.
I used Striders Constitution as a base, added in the key element of Daveshacks plan of strategic vs. tactical and added the Governors National Trade Tax. One can bash this for being "Provolutions Plan" and so on and getting nr 3 in votes, but that is not the issue.

In fact, Ashburnham, MOTH, Givgeneral, Strider and several others have added their things, as well as Blackhole as well, as I adopted some of all. However, the only personal touch I added here, was the function of Prime Minister and some of the redistribution of offices. I have deleted all my games from my harddrive in order to resist time squandering gaming activities, and get more time for my other non-descript activities.

So, if we renamed these options in the poll to be more correct and appropriate labels, we would have Strategy Council, Modified Traditional and Reformed Traditional.
Everyone knows that some of the nicks are tainted or flavored by some political events, which obscures the true matter at stake, and the content in the proposal.
Scrapping the proposal on the vote basis only does not make sense, as it is indeed very close to both of the other ones. However, this proposal has one more office than Daveshacks and one less office than Striders.

Again, this can be tweaked slightly with a minimum of work. So I disagree with CT and Blackhole in that this proposal is outside the compromise box due to votes, as it is indeed an abridged compromise between Daveshack/Blackholes and Striders/CTs.
If you for political reasons or gaming preferences want to omit all Provo-original material, feel free to omit the Provincial Trade Tax and the Prime Minister position, as well as reshuffling the strategic-tactical levels and responsibility areas, and then you will get a consitution free of any "Provo-marks", if that is the problem.

I do not see this as a popularity contest, but a means of getting reasonable tools most people can play with, and with balanced ministers, not two super-ministers and four mickey mouse ministers.

 

[Black_Hole]

Just a suggestion but why not have a runoff between Strider and Dave Shacks plans since they were the top 2 vote getters?

time.....

 

[Strider]

time.....

We have another two weeks. That's plenty of time.

 

[Black_Hole]

We have another two weeks. That's plenty of time.

CT wanted the constitution done by the time nominations start, which it should be because we dont want people nominating other people for a position that doesnt exist... CT said we would start nominations on the 23rd but that seems short for Feb, it should be the 21st, which is in 5 days. First we need a day or 2 to write the articles, then 5 days to ratify each article, then 5 days to ratify the entire constitution... that is 12 days and that considers that every ratifaction works... it also assumes someone can create the entire constitution in 1 night... realistic amount of time is 20 days, so we will be 15 days late...

 

[Black_Hole]

here we go:

In order to keep ourselves on track, I suggest we set a number of milestone dates, by which we need to have certain actions completed. Having this thread separate from the things to do thread is not a putdown on that thread, we just need a clean start on a list with some concrete dates.

Here are the ones we know about already, and my recommendation.

Rules / Elections track:
Nominations start: Feb 22
Ruleset Ratification ends: Feb 21 (need to have rules before noms, if humanly possible) Can't make this
Ruleset Ratification starts: Feb 16 (at the latest, this would be 5 day polls. If we want longer, move back accordingly)Not Done
Ruleset Final drafts posted for comment: Feb 14Not Done
Decisions complete on all major points: Feb 12Not Done
Polls posted for major ruleset decisions: Feb 7 (assuming 5 day polls)Somewhat Done
Draft rules, draft polls available for discussion: Feb 5Done

World Parameters track:
Polls close: Feb 21 (candidates need to know characteristics to know how to campaign)Can't make it
Polls open: Feb 16 (5 days)Not Done
Discussions end: Feb 16 (no need to discuss what options are in the polls)Not Done

Additional items:
Citizen registry opened : Feb 13, 3 days before ratification polls openNot Done
Forums created : Before the citizen registry is opened, early enough to allow threads to be copied.Not Done

 

[YNCS]

World Parameters track:
Polls close: Feb 21 (candidates need to know characteristics to know how to campaign)Can't make it
Polls open: Feb 16 (5 days)Not Done
Discussions end: Feb 16 (no need to discuss what options are in the polls)Being Opened

I'm perfectly willing to take this in hand. I threatened to do so previously. As soon as I close this post, I'll be setting up the discussion threads.