Constitution Structure

[Immortal]

Okay, now that the consititution is getting to be finished in content, are we going to use the same structure as we have done in past games? including CoL, CoS, or can we write the constitution in such a way that all information is contained in the constitution while still maintaining a relatively short document?

Should we decide on a new format, taking a look at other constitutions from past games, one that seems especially inviting is demogame 1 from the Civ 2 democracy game. It is certainly very inviting to new members:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=20654

 

[BCLG100]

It really depends whther we ever finish discussing the constitution, any way in which it was made easier for newbies to understand however would probably be appreciated.

 

[donsig]

There should not be a need for so much discussion abut the constitution. We had a great one in DG3. We should just use it or the DG4 constitution (without the other two books) and move along.

 

[BCLG100]

yer but without the discussion were losing the ethic and enjoyement of the demogame

 

[donsig]

yer but without the discussion were losing the ethic and enjoyement of the demogame

There is alot of discussion behind those constitutions. Do we really need to reinvent the wheel every time we play this game?

 

[Sarevok]

There is alot of discussion behind those constitutions. Do we really need to reinvent the wheel every time we play this game?

I think he was being sarcastic donsig. He probably feels as I do that most of this discussion is unimportant and we should be playing the game now.

 

[donsig]

I think he was being sarcastic donsig. He probably feels as I do that most of this discussion is unimportant and we should be playing the game now.

Then why pray tell are you trying to reinvent the wheel by giving those at the chat powers that have been consistantly denied to them due to these discussions? It is all this worry about having to shackle the DP that is *reinventing the wheel*.

 

[Sarevok]

Then why pray tell are you trying to reinvent the wheel by giving those at the chat powers that have been consistantly denied to them due to these discussions? It is all this worry about having to shackle the DP that is *reinventing the wheel*.

You misunderstand me. I want to shackle the DP from taking their powers too far, but only one of the DP's arms. I want to shackle both of the arms of all the TC attendants while the people of the forums are the people that truly run the show.

 

[donsig]

You misunderstand me. I want to shackle the DP from taking their powers too far, but only one of the DP's arms. I want to shackle both of the arms of all the TC attendants while the people of the forums are the people that truly run the show.

The DP has enough shackles, alot of work and little actual power. Giving those at the chat even the power to stop play does not shackle their arms but places a potent weapon in their hands. I can see cases where the DP would be bullied into doing what those at the chat want or not being able to play. Constantly halting play is also bad for the demogame.

 

[donsig]

Why don't we just start with the DG4 constitution intact (without the other two books), take a look at it article by article and see if we want to make any changes. Wouldn't this be more efficient than trying to start all over? Wouldn't this also give us a structured way of going about adopting the DG5 constitution so we can play?

Let's look at each article in turn and see what modifications are needed without having several different proposals on the wording. Let's look at what the article says and see if it gives us what we want. If not then let's decide what we want and craft the changes together working on ONE draft proposal together rather than each of us throwing different versions out all at the same time.

 

[Sarevok]

The DP has enough shackles, alot of work and little actual power. Giving those at the chat even the power to stop play does not shackle their arms but places a potent weapon in their hands. I can see cases where the DP would be bullied into doing what those at the chat want or not being able to play. Constantly halting play is also bad for the demogame.

As I had said before though, use of the chat stop would only be invoked my a mass majority. In my personal preffered heirarchy of power when it comes to making decisions, the People come first, then the president, then finally the TC people who should have very little if any power.

 

[Rik Meleet]

As I had said before though, use of the chat stop would only be invoked my a mass majority. In my personal preffered heirarchy of power when it comes to making decisions, the People come first, then the president, then finally the TC people who should have very little if any power.

TC people's power is clearly defined. If you, besides being a "TC - human", also are a citizen, you have the same rights as a citizen. Joining a TC doesn't remove your citizen-rights.
If you are a "TC - human" and you're not a citizen, you are supposed to be devoiced at the turnchat. Since that is a bit harsh on potential newcomers a friendly personal chat with the guest is usually sufficient to not have them interfering with the turnchat.
There's no extra or less power for TC-people.

 

[Sarevok]

TC people's power is clearly defined. If you, besides being a "TC - human", also are a citizen, you have the same rights as a citizen. Joining a TC doesn't remove your citizen-rights.
If you are a "TC - human" and you're not a citizen, you are supposed to be devoiced at the turnchat. Since that is a bit harsh on potential newcomers a friendly personal chat with the guest is usually sufficient to not have them interfering with the turnchat.
There's no extra or less power for TC-people.

Still, though they would not be "less" then the forum citizens, the people in TC's should have no right to change any instruction made in the forum.

 

[BCLG100]

There is alot of discussion behind those constitutions. Do we really need to reinvent the wheel every time we play this game?

Err yes i was being sarcastic, thats why i had the sarcastic rolleyes .

Anyways i think the crucial thread weve missed out is what to call ourselves???

 

[Black_Hole]

Err yes i was being sarcastic, thats why i had the sarcastic rolleyes .

Anyways i think the crucial thread weve missed out is what to call ourselves???

that isnt too important right now