COS to be citizen-polled?

[disorganizer]

INFORMATIONAL POLL

At the moment, the Code of standards is brought to us by the executive (=cabinet) only. No citizen poll is needed to implement these easy to change rules. The only way citizens can stop is to bring up a law against these standards, which is much harder to achieve.

This poll is about having the code of standards being changed by a simple citizen poll instead of cabinet poll. It also tries to figure out wheter to stricten change process for LAWS and having all existing laws moved to standards again and then decide law by law which one are important enough for a law.

Options:
1.) CITIZEN POLL + MOVE EXISTING LAWS TO STANDARDS
This option means that the citizenry decides on the standards. They will be easy to change with normal mayority on them and only cover details on laws. Laws will be harder to change then now.
This one also includes moving existing laws to standards and then deciding law by law during the game which standards are important enough to be laws.

2.) CITIZEN POLL only
This option is the same as above, only that laws will be as easy to change that now and they stay where they are.

3.) CABINET POLL
the existing system with only the cabinet voting about standards and no citizen inclusion in the decissions

4.) ABSTAIN
as always

The poll will be non-binding and up for 3 days.

 

[disorganizer]

An example could be:

move the park-laws to standards.
then decide a law where is only defined that park land rules exist which override governors and department responsibilities.


also an example could be:

needed vote-ratio:
3/4 for constitutional changes
2/3 for laws
normal mayority for standards.
(with quorum applying to all of them)


the government will still be able to file up "regulations" which they thing will define things in details, like setting the chatschedule etc, but they still would not need any voting.

 

[Octavian X]

Theoretically, the Code of Standard is controlled by the citizenry. The standards are not allowed to conflict with the citizen-controled Code of Laws and Constitution.
And just because only the council votes, doesn't mean the citizenry can't debate on the changes.

As a note, the Code of Standards deals with forum organization, turn chat threadsm naming rights, turn chat procedure, turn chat rules, forum poll procedures, elections, investigations, games scehdules, Absenteeism, and the citizen registry.

 

[disorganizer]

The sense of this poll also is to implement a quick-win rulebase for citizenry to implement low-impact rules on a easy decission base.
The points you mention would go to regulations of the government.

A law takes much more effort to change than a standard at the moment, so coutering a standard is very hard as in some phases of the game almost impossible.
Also, i dont want to see everything regulated by laws as they were thought as basic and rough rulebase rarely to be changed.

 

[Shaitan]

dis, I thought you founded some group dedicated to making the rules simple. It looks here like you want to change the standards into laws, part 2 (or Laws Lite) and add a new section of standards called regulations.

 

[disorganizer]

well, the standards now and the regulations in my proposal can definitely not be called rules!
they are "process definitions" or "how to's" maybe. not more, as all rules must be based on citizen decissions, which standards now are not.
the idea is to have 3 books with rules. (hey, that at least was the original idea until standards were "corrupted" into regulations).
from book to book, it gets harder to change, being pretty simple to change a standard.

 

[disorganizer]

btw:
imho, we would not need any regulations nor any laws.
my original proposal is:
* SIMPLE constitution with NO detail.
* book of regulations which was polled on citizenry.
thats all
the cons would only hold game principles. there would even not be a definition of which departments are there in it. only the plain ideas behind the game (will of citizenry, chat for playout, separation of governmental powers, montly elections). not more.
the regulations will hold all other things and can be changed by normal citizen mayority, as they only define gameplay details.

 

[chiefpaco]

I agree with you dis. I'm not sure how popular the idea is.

[selfish rant]
However, I see no reason why the citizens have no access to these rules. As I've said, I elect the leaders to lead their depts, not to set the rules for me. I'm playing the game too and I want to have a say on changes.
[/selfish rant]

 

[Cyc]

Well, then cp, I suggest your run for office. That way you'll have a say in the Laws and the Standards. If the way the Constitution is not set up the way you'd like, then I suggest you participate a little more when the Constitution is being re-worked.

 

[Shaitan]

@ disorganizer - The setup is working very well right now. What advantage would your proposal bring over the current setup?

 

[disorganizer]

more citizen influence on rules
no need for laws for some things (like park)

 

[Shaitan]

Citizens already have ultimate influence on the rules. They determine all Articles and Laws. Standards are not permitted to conflict with any of those. If the Council passed a standard that the citizens as a whole don't like they can get the Council to recind it or simply correct the problem with a law.

Why would laws for things like a park be different under your proposed system?

 

[Phoenix]

Like the idea but to stop people from just continuously posting polls on new rules we could have an offical.

Sorrey if this has already been said I didn't want to read the entire thread.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
more citizen influence on rules
no need for laws for some things (like park)

But you would still have laws, just called standards, or regulations, or whatever.

If not, the first time some governor violated what someone thought was a park, all hell would break loose, with the Governor saying "there's no law", and some citizen's group that you undoubtedly would lead, would be calling for that governor's head for "violating the will of the people".

All of this seems to be becoming an argument of semantics rather than real changes to the system.

 

[donsig]

OH MY GOD!

 

[donsig]

I abstained because there is no *other* option.

What has evolved into standards should be trashed completely. We do not need them. What we do need is to let our elected officials do some things without having to conform to a rule. Let the president format the turn chat thread as he or she sees fit. Let the president schedule turns chats (if we are to have them) as he or she sees fit. We do not need a standard or a law for all of these things.

I recall vetoing the turn thread amendment. I took alot of flak in an effort to get everyone focused on Phoenatica rather than rule making. It appears all for naught as the vetoed section ended up as a standard (I think). Then it wasn't even followed in terms 4 and 5!

Quit making rules and play the game!!!!

 

[Zarn]

Rules make the game bad. We are not really running a civ. Enjoy it, don't beat it with a sledge hammer or something. The reason that I was for that mayor thing in the other poll is to get people involved. This is overstepping it though.

 

[Danke]

Actually, good rules make a good game. Definition of a good rule: one that enhances game play, simplifies processes, and makes the overall governance or communication of/with the citizenry clearer or easier.

(I'm winging it here. There are obviously lots of definitions of what makes a good rule).

 

[Danke]

Having just said that, I'm voting 'abstain'. Laws are laws, standards are standards. Seems to be workign for me.