Demogame Rules - Bugs Report

Greetings Citizens.
In order to reduce the amount of Judicial activity on rule interpretation, I suggest that we use this special non discussion thread to post any conflicts, anomalies or omissions in our ruleset that we discover.

Please only post any problems you discover and the Judiciary will initiate procedure to rectify them through the Legislature.

Thank you.

(Please sticky this)

 

And I left my notes at my desk at work ...

Couple of core ones that I can remember:
* Refusal polls need to be cleaned up - all laws calling for one should simply state "Any citizen may request a refusal poll for this". CoS section on Refusal polls should be cleaned up as well. A strict reading of current verbage could imply that deputies are not subject to them.
* CoL and CoS Amendment sections along with JR Review of proposed laws could use some clarification.

There are others on the list, these are just on the top of my head.

-- Ravensfire

 

The Senate is empowered to approve cash rushes but it is not specified who should post the instruction.

 

The term election needs to be clarified to encompass the entire election cycle, including any runoff polls.

The term vacancy / vacant needs to be clarified to state it applies only in certain cases. This is also handled indirectly by the 1st point, an election isn't over until its completely over.

• When an office remains unfilled after an election cycle because there were no candidates
• When an official resigns
• When the office holder is declared absent and removed from office

If the same person wins multiple offices, do they enter both offices and then resign one, creating a vacancy, or do they withdraw from one election prior to its completion, so the 2nd place steps up?

 

Believe it or not, the last section of our ruleset is going through Ratification right now (thanks, Cyc, for posting it).

To focus the discussions, I suggest we create a couple of threads on the various problem areas. For example, we should have one for Election cleanup, one for instruction cleanup, one for refusal poll cleanup, one for general typos cleanup and one for general clarifications.

The cleanup threads are basically clarification stuff, not for wholesale revisions. Let's keep that process seperate from this. My reasoning is that, in general, the clarifications should go faster than revisions. No laws are being changed, just clarifications to make sure everyone is looking at the same thing.

I suggest we start this a day or two after the final CoS is posted.

-- Ravensfire

 

Section C.3 of the CoL is unworkable. Given the short time between game play sessions there is not enough time to get proposals from Senators and then post a seperate poll thread that will allow 24 hours to vote and still allow the President of the Senate to post slider instructions. Also, seperate poll threads do not seem to be needed as these can be handled in theSenate thread itself. Also, allowances should be made for cash rushes that are not made at the same time.

 

Section C.1.a.2 of the CoL defines the Senatorial President as the VP, but does not specify a mechanism to fill this important office during official absences of the VP. This leaves us with nobody empowered to post instructions on the areas within the Senate's control during a Vice-Presidential absence.

 

CoS J.1 specifies that Nomination threads and the Nomination Tracker threads should be posted in the Citizens sub-forum. We've been doing all this in the Main Forum which keeps all the election threads neatly (well as neat as they can be) in one place.

 

CoS B.1.k (nominations) conflicts with CoS J.1.a and J.1.e.

 

To summarize and organize the above posts:

Code:

Elections:
-- The term election needs to be clarified to encompass 
   the entire election cycle, including any runoff polls.
-- CoS J.1 specifies that Nomination threads and the 
   Nomination Tracker threads should be posted in the 
   Citizens sub-forum. We've been doing all this in the Main 
   Forum which keeps all the election threads neatly (well 
   as neat as they can be) in one place.  [b]CORRECTED[/b]
-- CoS B.1.k (nominations) conflicts with CoS J.1.a and 
   J.1.e.  [b]CORRECTED[/b]

Vacancies:
-- The term vacancy / vacant needs to be clarified to state 
   it applies only in certain cases. This is also handled 
   indirectly by the 1st point, an election isn't over until 
   its completely over.
   -- When an office remains unfilled after an election 
      cycle because there were no candidates
   -- When an official resigns
   -- When the office holder is declared absent and removed 
      from office
-- If the same person wins multiple offices, do they enter 
   both offices and then resign one, creating a vacancy, or 
   do they withdraw from one election prior to its 
   completion, so the 2nd place steps up?


Senate:
-- Section C.3 of the CoL is unworkable. Given the short 
   time between game play sessions there is not enough time 
   to get proposals from Senators and then post a seperate 
   poll thread that will allow 24 hours to vote and still 
   allow the President of the Senate to post slider 
   instructions. 
-- Also, seperate poll threads do not seem to be needed as 
   these can be handled in the Senate thread itself. Also, 
   allowances should be made for cash rushes that are not 
   made at the same time.
-- Section C.1.a.2 of the CoL defines the Senatorial 
   President as the VP, but does not specify a mechanism to 
   fill this important office during official absences of 
   the VP. This leaves us with nobody empowered to post 
   instructions on the areas within the Senate's control 
   during a Vice-Presidential absence.
   
Refusal Polls:
-- Refusal polls need to be cleaned up 
   -- All laws calling for one should simply state "Any 
      citizen may request a refusal poll for this action". 
-- CoS section on Refusal polls should be cleaned up as 
   well. A strict reading of current verbage could imply 
   that deputies are not subject to them. 
   
Amendments
-- CoL and CoS Amendment sections along with JR Review of 
   proposed laws could use some clarification.
-- Explicitly state in CoS Amendments that no Amendment may
   contradict any Article of the Constitution or Section of
   the Code of Laws
   -- Basically, establish the CoS as below the CoL.

Is this accurate?

-- Ravensfire

 

Something funny from the CoL, section A

Code:

  6.  Right to Seek a Redress of Grievances
    a.  Any citizen may call to account any violation of the 
        Constitution or Code of Laws. 

You can't seek a redress of grievances (CC) for violating the CoS. I cannot believe I missed that;

-- Ravensfire

 

According to a recent JR, it is up to ministers or governors requesting cash rushes to post instructions once a given cash rush is approved by the Senate. This puts the DP in a tight spot as he or she will be going on the assumption that the various leaders have actually approved the funding request. Would it not be better for the Senate to be its own messanger?

Also, there seems to be nothing in any of the Three Books that would prevent a game play session one second after a term begins. I thought the rules were written so that there would always be ample time before a given session for proper nistructions to be posted!

 

2. The Congress (Citizens)
a. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.
b. Provincial borders shall be determined and approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than
approximately 126 tiles

It has come to my attention that people are trying to side step the intention of this Law (as clearly documented in the discusions that supported it). It should read:

2. The Congress (Citizens)
a. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.
b. Provincial borders shall be determined and approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than
approximately 126 Land tiles.

By correcting this, we could clear up any miss understanding about the Law.

 

Cleanup thread #1 is posted here.

-- Ravensfire

 

A recent JR over provincial borders, especially at the beginning of the game, prompted this post from me. I'm copying it here, in hopes the future DG's will consider this.

I am still concerned about the use of "tradition" as law. As most of you know, I have trouble with that, and have tried to put many of these traditions in our law. New players do not know these traditions, creating confusion.

In this case, by tradition, the first province is everything. Yet, there is nothing within the law to support such a conclusion, nothing that defines a "default" set of borders. Adding something like that would have taken a single sentance "Until such times as provincial borders are defined, all land discovered is considered part of the first province.", and this review would not have existed.

My thanks,
-- Ravensfire