Democratic Proposal: Changes in Departmental Duties

[Epimethius]

There is currently no specification to my knowledge saying that science doesn't run spaceship parts. As I see it, that's Science's national project capability, just like units are Military's and wonders are Culture's.

 

[Strider]

You may think that the proposal goes to far, but I believe that our current system does not go far enough. It does not clearly define the duties and responsibilities of our elected offcials. It is not well thought out, and leaves out many things that could cause problems later in the game.

Tell me, what is the problem with "mixing earth with water?" Jurisdiction issue's can easily be solved by the citizens, so you can not reasonably tell me that is one way. This proposal also allows the departments enough power to do there job, and to aid the nation the best. It also lessens the blow (somewhat) from a leader who fails to do his/her job correctly.

 

[Cyc]

There is currently no specification to my knowledge saying that science doesn't run spaceship parts. As I see it, that's Science's national project capability, just like units are Military's and wonders are Culture's.

I can agree with your interpretation of these three issues, Epimethius.

Tell me, what is the problem with "mixing earth with water?" Jurisdiction issue's can easily be solved by the citizens, so you can not reasonably tell me that is one way.

Muddying of the issues is not the direction we should be heading in. Refinement is what we should be seeking.

 

[Epimethius]

I would like to point out that it was me who came up with the current departmental systems as well, and the only juristictional problem we have had so far was when someone took it upon himself to try checking the incompetance of other departments. That was a serious problem, and you want to make it constitutional and encouraged.

 

[Black_Hole]

I would like to point out that it was me who came up with the current departmental systems as well, and the only juristictional problem we have had so far was when someone took it upon himself to try checking the incompetance of other departments. That was a serious problem, and you want to make it constitutional and encouraged.

which happens to be the same way it was done in dg1, interesting

 

[Strider]

I would like to point out that it was me who came up with the current departmental systems as well, and the only juristictional problem we have had so far was when someone took it upon himself to try checking the incompetance of other departments. That was a serious problem, and you want to make it constitutional and encouraged.

So your to blame for the wreck of the current system?

Also, it does not allow leaders to check other departments for incompetance, it merely allows other departments to make up for anothers incompetance.

 

[Cyc]

Strider, why did you pick an avatar that's picking its nose?

I think we should leave the system the way it is and only consider one (1) change at a time.

 

[truckingpete]

Settle down Cyc...

Strider can post stuff about making some changes about the DemoGame if he wants....

 

[invy]

Making a perfect constitution would take time I just read full thread and saw this might go well. .

To add more so we can discuss: Besides ministers duties strictly limited so they don't get into each others business and stop the system and game, we are really not having any strategy.
That should be national plan (or whatever we call it) which seems noone likes. For example: We could in this term make embassy in Rome and in next term our new Military advisor will attack Rome becuase people like to attack someone and Rome is weakest. Its people's will and gov dont take responsibility

Goverments job is to 'coordinate' will of people and not to listen to people blindly and ask for mass opinion when something goes bad. Goverment needs to make plans -> people will accept or decline and then we could follow it. At the moment whatever happens in Japanatica is simply dealed with 'we'll talk to people' -> stop the turnchat. What if its too late to talk to people and we can't repair damage, that is why we need plans, national or otherwise.

Great plus goes for something called like national security plan, it really helps when deciding where to settle. Culture minister should make a plan for example to make a library at our gold city and propose a time so other minister can coordinate with that. etc etc... just example.

As it goes now one man decides what is being built and ministers can if they want override it. Citizens can suggest changes.

We could give duty to our President to 'collect' plans and to control minister's work. So President could make sure realization goes well, and he might call for ministers responsibility if they are not doing what they should.

We would also need to find a way how to coordinate efficiently.

Lets make plans and stick to it. 'We'll talk to people' system should be used when something happens that is not covered by plans.

 

[Strider]

Making a perfect constitution would take time I just read full thread and saw this might go well. .

To add more so we can discuss: Besides ministers duties strictly limited so they don't get into each others business and stop the system and game, we are really not having any strategy.
That should be national plan (or whatever we call it) which seems noone likes. For example: We could in this term make embassy in Rome and in next term our new Military advisor will attack Rome becuase people like to attack someone and Rome is weakest. Its people's will and gov dont take responsibility

Goverments job is to 'coordinate' will of people and not to listen to people blindly and ask for mass opinion when something goes bad. Goverment needs to make plans -> people will accept or decline and then we could follow it. At the moment whatever happens in Japanatica is simply dealed with 'we'll talk to people' -> stop the turnchat. What if its too late to talk to people and we can't repair damage, that is why we need plans, national or otherwise.

Great plus goes for something called like national security plan, it really helps when deciding where to settle. Culture minister should make a plan for example to make a library at our gold city and propose a time so other minister can coordinate with that. etc etc... just example.

As it goes now one man decides what is being built and ministers can if they want override it. Citizens can suggest changes.

We could give duty to our President to 'collect' plans and to control minister's work. So President could make sure realization goes well, and he might call for ministers responsibility if they are not doing what they should.

We would also need to find a way how to coordinate efficiently.

Lets make plans and stick to it. 'We'll talk to people' system should be used when something happens that is not covered by plans.

I agree with you on this. Let the citizens decide what they want, and then leave the leaders to do there job. A leader can often plan much better without having to worry about posting a poll over every small issue. Poll the major stuff, but let the leaders handle some of the smaller matters by themselves (or by advice in the ministry thread).

Cyc: The image is bad quality... I'll see if I can find a better one.

 

[Epimethius]

So your to blame for the wreck of the current system?

Also, it does not allow leaders to check other departments for incompetance, it merely allows other departments to make up for anothers incompetance.

What you call intradepartmental checks I call intradepartmental fights. Juristictional overlaps aren't fun. And calling in the people to determine the boundaries is a waste of time, because the boundaries are already determined. As someone, probably Cyc, said, this is just an excuse to give the MA and CA override power. Other than that you have no serious excuse for this other than the proven-incorrect concept that confusing juristictions are good.

Its the leader's choice to poll each issue. Constitutionally, they only have to poll some. The leader can run on a platform of polling a lot or a little. You can have a choice between voting on every city site, or letting the leader decide. And contrary to whatever you may feel, I've found people perfer to decide themselves, even when it comes to a city name. But the amount is up to you, so if you want research to be chosen by one man, then vote for the man who'll do that. If you want a say yourself, then vote for someone who'll give it to you.

The Governor exists to coordinate such plans. Were it left with the president he'd have too much to do, and without such a coordinator it would be chaos.

And I'm not to blame for the system, the People are. They could've gone with Dave's five-minister system, or made up a ten minister system. But they choose mine. And if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the most basic of all the tenets of this constitution.

 

[Strider]

What you call intradepartmental checks I call intradepartmental fights. Juristictional overlaps aren't fun. And calling in the people to determine the boundaries is a waste of time, because the boundaries are already determined. As someone, probably Cyc, said, this is just an excuse to give the MA and CA override power. Other than that you have no serious excuse for this other than the proven-incorrect concept that confusing juristictions are good.

Its the leader's choice to poll each issue. Constitutionally, they only have to poll some. The leader can run on a platform of polling a lot or a little. You can have a choice between voting on every city site, or letting the leader decide. And contrary to whatever you may feel, I've found people perfer to decide themselves, even when it comes to a city name. But the amount is up to you, so if you want research to be chosen by one man, then vote for the man who'll do that. If you want a say yourself, then vote for someone who'll give it to you.

The Governor exists to coordinate such plans. Were it left with the president he'd have too much to do, and without such a coordinator it would be chaos.

And I'm not to blame for the system, the People are. They could've gone with Dave's five-minister system, or made up a ten minister system. But they choose mine. And if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the most basic of all the tenets of this constitution.

You can believe whatever you want to behind the reasoning of this proposal, I could care less. Also, I'm not even going to bother replying as you've brought up the same thing you did in your last post and the post after that.

You believe that there would be jurisdiction issues, you've said so 5 times already, and as I've replied almost every single time, I do not think it will be a problem.

 

[Epimethius]

No, I also addressed you comments that the President should organize everything, not the governor, and that polling is bad. And so far you have failed to show any proof that overlap won't be a problem. We have proof to the contrary because of the big problem over FA Polls.

 

[Strider]

No, I also addressed you comments that the President should organize everything, not the governor, and that polling is bad. And so far you have failed to show any proof that overlap won't be a problem. We have proof to the contrary because of the big problem over FA Polls.

I never said the President should organize everything, and I also never said polling was bad. I have no clue where you got the "President should organize everything from," and I really suggest you read back into the past DG's if you want to see my stance on polling.

What "big problem" over FA polls? You mean the one that took place under the CURRENT SYSTEM? And this "big problem" was fixed how?

The current system lacks (roughly) the following:

1. Clearly Define what a leader can or can not do
2. Subject them to the will of the people
3. Allow leaders the power to handle aspects of there certain department
4. Does not mention someone to organzie Wonder Placement
5. Does not mention someone to organize shuttle placement
6. Overpowers Domestic, and does not give enough power to Culture and Science

All of this can be easily remedied in my (above proposal).

 

[Curufinwe]

Epimethius- You state that if we want to have a leader who will poll us, then we vote for one who will do this. That is all and well, an example of an indirect democracy. But, you forget that our system of election isn't fair, and we can not make it fair save through immense difficulty, bar changes to CFC itself. So, as I've stated it takes a plurality to elect an official, a plurality that in some, and perhaps many, instances will not be a majority. This violation of the principle of popular control is thus a violation of democracy, as it is not majoritarianism but minoritarianism, also known as aristocracy or oligarchy.

And, after we elect this official, for a month they are subject to relatively little popular control. There are a few polls, and the woefully inadequate instrument of the CC. This system allows the governor to act with little challenge upon their authority. Yes, so far they have shown self-control, but that does not mean they are. We can look to the real world to see what poor checks and balances can cause. I've listed the Constitutional Crisis in Australia in 1975 CE as one, the fall of the Weimar Republic another. Of course, the DG would never happen like that, but those are examples of what poorly designed constitutions can cause. The same is here, we survive because people don't want to sabotage the system. When one comes along and gets elected, then we stand at risk of that, with only the CC to hold them in check. That isn't enough, and that's why we need reform.

 

[Dominik]

It's no use trying to draft up a Constitutional change of this size, no one will agree. Deal with each issue individually, rather than that giant first post. Some points are valid and some aren't. We're not getting anywhere arguing like this.

 

[invy]

It's no use trying to draft up a Constitutional change of this size, no one will agree. Deal with each issue individually, rather than that giant first post. Some points are valid and some aren't. We're not getting anywhere arguing like this.

Good point! Try splitting these idea and present it 1 by 1. Simple, short and clear and more people will understand a proposal. There is better chance for succes because there are good ideas here but its too large change to happen at once.
Just to point: i also think Culture and Science Departments should get more power. It seems to me that they don't do anything except making few polls. We need their plans for future of Japanatica so that we know where are we going. At least they will have something to do hehe

 

[Strider]

It's no use trying to draft up a Constitutional change of this size, no one will agree. Deal with each issue individually, rather than that giant first post. Some points are valid and some aren't. We're not getting anywhere arguing like this.

It's no use trying to deal with each issue individually either. That would cause some issue's to pass, while others do not and would cause HUGE jurisdiction issue's. Either the proposal pass's as one or it doesn't pass at all, to do anything else would be idoitic.

 

[Chieftess]

Looks good to me. Although, put the changes in bold.

@ravensfire - Think before you speak, and don't be so quick to drown out other people's suggestions, no matter what you think of them.

 

[Cyc]

So is that Moderator action, CT? If it is, please label it as such. If it isn't, please don't use Moderator colors when you post, OK?