[DG2] - Delegation of Authority

[DaveShack]

Here's another new subject. Do we want the rules to say anything about the ability for officials to delegate authority to other players?

We have often had deputies with this implied power, and sometimes had officials create "unofficial deputy" positions. I'd like to explore the idea of allowing any official to delegate authority for part or all of their area to another player. This would have the benefit of recognizing something that we know happens a lot anyway.

Responsibility is different, and I don't think it should be delegated. For example, if an official authorizes someone else to post instructions and then illegal / invalid instructions are posted, the official could be held responsible instead of or in addition to the delegate.

 

[donsig]

Oh my god, I don't even want to get into this. Last game it was official versus binding now we're going to argue over authority versus responsibility.

We should be careful with these two words when defining offices. I do not think we should let officials delegate authority. Officials can hire and fire all the helpers they want but when it comes to the actual posting of game play instructions that should be strictly controlled. Posting instructions based on a valid citizen initiative poll is different and can be done by anyone, though deciding which are valid is another question. I also think this would be a good place to discuss letting the judiciary post game play instructions.

 

[DaveShack]

No, I'd rather not argue over those two words.

I will say that I believe it's better to have an informed, designated backup posting instructions for an office than it is to have no instructions posted at all. I'll be on a trip from 2/10 - 2/16, and would prefer to be able to hand over the keys of whatever office I'm in then to someone I choose, whether deputy or other official or newb citizen, over leaving the work of that office undone.

Also, what do you think a Pro-tem Justice is? It's someone to whom the authority of the Justice is temporarily delegated.

 

[GenMarshall]

The Deputyship should have the authority of the office in the event an offical deligates the responsibilities to them when they go on an offical absance.

 

[donsig]

I'll be on a trip from 2/10 - 2/16, and would prefer to be able to hand over the keys of whatever office I'm in then to someone I choose, whether deputy or other official or newb citizen, over leaving the work of that office undone.

Is this a hypothetical situation or are you already assuming you will have an office? Are you assuming there will be offices? Ever heard about counting your chickens before they hatch?

Also, what do you think a Pro-tem Justice is? It's someone to whom the authority of the Justice is temporarily delegated.

The judiciary has never had authority to post game play instructions and these are key here. Since we allow officials to make game play decisions (if we as a group don't) then we should not be letting them just hand over that authority as they see fit.

The Deputyship should have the authority of the office in the event an offical deligates the responsibilities to them when they go on an offical absance.

I have no problem with that as long as the citizens have some say in who that deputy is. I've got no problem with an official appointing his own deputy (as long as citizens get some sort of veto power). I don't like the runner up of an election automatically being made deputy. I prefer candidates to pick their deputy / running mate before the election.

 

[GenMarshall]

I have no problem with that as long as the citizens have some say in who that deputy is. I've got no problem with an official appointing his own deputy (as long as citizens get some sort of veto power). I don't like the runner up of an election automatically being made deputy. I prefer candidates to pick their deputy / running mate before the election.

You and I must be at odds because I prefer the old runner up of the election to become the deputy. Not some beurocratic mumbo jumbo of abusing the veto power to kick out the deputy just because one citizen does not like a certain candidate. Personally, I dont like the idea of the candidate picking their deputy/running mate before the election because it would leave thoes of us who relay want the job out in the dust.

 

[DaveShack]

I might be wrong, but in the several games we have had confirmation polls, I can't think of a single failed confirmation. Also we have made confirmation polls optional in the past, and something like over 80% of appointments have no confirmation poll.

 

[DaveShack]

Ever heard about counting your chickens before they hatch?

You're right, we might not have started by then.

As for instruction posting being key, our problem is typically no instructions. If you'd be so kind as to point out a case where someone other than the official posted instructions which caused an actual problem, I'd certainly be willing to review them and possibly change my position on the matter. Without such an example, worries about someone using delegated powers to run amok are nothing more than a "sky is falling" type argument.

 

[GenMarshall]

You and I must be at odds because I prefer the old runner up of the election to become the deputy. Not some beurocratic mumbo jumbo of abusing the veto power to kick out the deputy just because one citizen does not like a certain candidate. Personally, I dont like the idea of the candidate picking their deputy/running mate before the election because it would leave thoes of us who relay want the job out in the dust.

IIRC from the old days, there were conformation polls made by Leaders (who won a non contested election) oftenly pick from an applicant who is interested in the job for the Deputyship. The same thing also happened with Chat Reps.

 

[donsig]

As for instruction posting being key, our problem is typically no instructions. If you'd be so kind as to point out a case where someone other than the official posted instructions which caused an actual problem, I'd certainly be willing to review them and possibly change my position on the matter. Without such an example, worries about someone using delegated powers to run amok are nothing more than a "sky is falling" type argument.

No one other than officials (or deputies) has ever posted instructions because we've always guarded the turn chat instruction thread to the point where non-officials cannot make posts in it. It is bad enough the forum part of the game is eroded by the chat. I do not think we should now undermine the democracy part of the game by letting officials delegate decision making authority to just anyone. It's not even worth pushing for DaveShack. If you're worried about absences we'll have deputies like we always do. If you want help running your (as yet non-existant) office then recruit someone, have them draft instructions and then YOU copy and paste them into the game play instruction thread. That way everyone (including you) will know you not only had authority to post those instructions but you are also responsible for them.

Now, if you really want to tackle the problem of no instructions then a) let's do away with the chats or at least make them available at the discretion of the DP; and b) let's institute a system of citizen initiative polls where anyone can post the results of a completed and valid poll as a game play instruction. These initiatives could be posted by anyone (including office holders) and would be our top level of game play instructions. Elected officials could make actual decisions and post instructions about things not covered by initiatives. Hope fully they would do so by taking into account citizen discussions. The DP would then make any decisions not covered by either initiatives or official instructions. Finally, we could give the judiciary authority to post game play instructions in cases where there are conflicting instructions or to remedy illegal instructions that were already carried out.

Option a would take away official's ability to advise at the chat and prompt them to post game play instructions in the forum. Option b would put many more of us (legally) into the instruction posting business which would increase the amount of instructions.

Either option would help to increase and maintain interest and participation in the demogame.

 

[ice2k4]

I don't see why deputies shouldn't be able to represent an official (no matter where it is.) If the deputy does something wrong, the blame should go to the official, as the deputy just represents the official. The official can then yell at the deputy if he chooses to and fire him. Much like in real life.

 

[Cyc]

Nor do I, ice. An elected Official is always held responsible for the Office they are elected to. If someone they appoint screws up, it just shows us the Official lacks the ability to delegate. All Officials should be able to appoint whomever they want to do whatever is needed to make their Office work better. If the Official is just a lazy person who wants everyone else to do the work for them, that will show and probably be evident in the next election. We live and learn.

Good idea - Finally, we could give the judiciary authority to post game play instructions in cases where there are conflicting instructions or to remedy illegal instructions that were already carried out.

But I believe this could also include (or the main part being) that the Judiciary has the authority to post instructions for an Office when no such instructions exist, yet the obvious opinion of the people on an issue is evident, such as a poll or discussion. This would require some work on the idea and wording of law.

 

[DaveShack]

The actual example from DG1 is Governors trying to give control of their city to the Minister of Interior for an individual play session.

We should never forcibly take away the ability of an official to rectify their own mistake, unless we've already taken a more drastic step like throwing someone out of office. The Judiciary should never need to post instructions, because the official should be doing it. I would be fine with the Judiciary posting a notice that a given instruction is illegal and the DP does not need to follow it, or that the action is illegal and the DP must not take it, but it would not be OK to post an alternative instruction -- that should be left to the official.

As was already pointed out somewhere, citizens should probably be allowed to post an instruction as the result of a poll that they initiate, though I'd also put a caveat that it should only be done if the responsible official doesn't do it.

What about officials having backup authority for other officials? Domestic being the backup for governors (or another governor being the backup), President being the backup for Domestic, etc?

 

[Cyc]

The idea is not to forcibly take away anyone's ability for anything. The idea covers deadbeat Leaders 9or incompetant ones) who won't post instructions or who leave out important instructions on an issue that has just been discussed or polled. Why do you keep changing what people say, DS. Sheesh, I might as well join RF...

 

[donsig]

We should never forcibly take away the ability of an official to rectify their own mistake

Allowing the judiciary to post alternative orders to rectify an illegal order does not preclude an official from fixing the mistake. If an official stepped up and did so then there would be no need for the judiciary to become invovled and life would continue on. As Cyc pointed out we need the judiciary to step in when an official doesn't or just plain won't fix a mistake.

The Judiciary should never need to post instructions, because the official should be doing it.

That's a great argument DaveShack. By the same logic we should never need a turn chat because the DP should always follow instructions and the WotP. Hey, we don't even need a judiciary because every one should follow the rules and the rules should be well written and crystal clear to all who can read English. And of course we all should know just what should means.

I would be fine with the Judiciary posting a notice that a given instruction is illegal and the DP does not need to follow it, or that the action is illegal and the DP must not take it, but it would not be OK to post an alternative instruction -- that should be left to the official.

So in effect nothing changes since all an official has to do is ignore the judiciary's notice that the instruction was illegal.

As was already pointed out somewhere, citizens should probably be allowed to post an instruction as the result of a poll that they initiate, though I'd also put a caveat that it should only be done if the responsible official doesn't do it.

And if the responsible official doesn't? How long do we wait on him or her? Why force officials to do secretarial work for a poll they may well be against? We've had complaints that holding office is all work and no power. Let's try to cut the work by allowing anyone to post instructions based on completed and valid polls and give officials authority to make decisions and post instrucitons regarding anything within their sphere not polled? ill this not answer the complaints of previous officials without compromising citizen input? Is this not flexible enough to allow the upright official to still post all instructions himself?

What about officials having backup authority for other officials? Domestic being the backup for governors (or another governor being the backup), President being the backup for Domestic, etc?

Well, heck, why not go back to allowing citizens to run for multiple offices and let them hold every office they can win? C'mon DaveShack, let's stop trying to cover for deadbeat elected officials. If we're stupid enough to vote these guys in time and again then we deserve what we get. And if we'd just ratify the idea that citizen initiated polls are binding and the resulting instructions can be posted by anyone then in effect we'd all be back ups for all offices. Under this system, if an official is doing a decent job then I doubt there would be many (if any) citizen initiatives within his sphere. If an official does a bad job or none at all there are many of us who'd step up with initiative polls. Those who did step up (and did a good job) in those circumstances would most likely be encouraged to run for office. This is also an excellant way to allow new citizens to get a feel for things without risking their untried political skills in an election.

Really, what is wrong with the system I'm proposing?

 

[DaveShack]

Let's not erode the power and prestige of officials who are present. The point of allowing them first dibs on posting instructions implementing the results of polls in their area is to be polite to them. If we can't even be polite to our officials, then perhaps we shouldn't have officials at all.

Why do you characterize assigning the duties of "deadbeats" to others as covering for them? Or to be more accurate, what is wrong with covering for a deadbeat? Someone has to do the job, we have ample evidence that duties assigned to nobody (not the person) tend to just never get done.

The idea you are describing, of having citizens post the results of the polls they drive, could be called "volunteer backups" as long as we maintain the respectful attitude towards officials who are doing their job. Someone notices the job isn't getting done and takes on the work. If you look back at some of the things I posted in the "build as you go" thread, you'll find that I suggested this as a mechanism for defining a new office and selecting its first official.

We could do all of the above, instead of arguing over which way is better. An official who knows of an impending absense could designate a backup -- preferably the deputy unless we have a case where the deputy is a "deadbeat". If a citizen volunteers to cover an unexpected absense fine, if another official from a related area covers it, that's fine too.

 

[donsig]

Let's not erode the power and prestige of officials who are present. The point of allowing them first dibs on posting instructions implementing the results of polls in their area is to be polite to them. If we can't even be polite to our officials, then perhaps we shouldn't have officials at all.

Let's not erode the power and prestige of ordinary citizens, those people you want to hang around and play this game. If we're going to get down and dirty about who has first dibs then it should be the citizens not an elected official. Elected officials are supposed to be servents of the citizens, remember? I'm not advocating this as a system where citizens go off half cocked and start pissing everyone else off. Sure, that can happen under the system but what you talk about can also happen. But we do not make it a rule that officials get first dibs. You're the one never wanting to hold up the game and now you're suggesting a rule where a citizen can post an instruction based on a valid poll result but has to wait to see if an official does it first. So, how long do we give the official before the citizen can post? C'mon, why complicate things with rules like these? These are not things for rules and laws these are etiquette issues.

Why do you characterize assigning the duties of "deadbeats" to others as covering for them? Or to be more accurate, what is wrong with covering for a deadbeat? Someone has to do the job, we have ample evidence that duties assigned to nobody (not the person) tend to just never get done.

You had to put in that disclaimer and ruin my Nobody/nobody joke. If we are talking about making gameplay decisons then that should not be delegated willy nilly. If citizen initiative polls do not cover a decision and the official does not make the decision then let it fall to the DP. As I said earlier, officials can have deputies just as long as citizens get a say in who that deputy is (via election or confirmaiton poll or veto power). We have citizens, official, deputy, DP. How much more coverage do we need for crying out loud?

The idea you are describing, of having citizens post the results of the polls they drive, could be called "volunteer backups" as long as we maintain the respectful attitude towards officials who are doing their job. Someone notices the job isn't getting done and takes on the work. If you look back at some of the things I posted in the "build as you go" thread, you'll find that I suggested this as a mechanism for defining a new office and selecting its first official.

Personally, I'll be respectful towards those I feel have earned my respect. As I pointed out earlier this is an etiquette issue not a rule issue. I'm arguing here (as I always have) that citizens making their wishes known in the forum always trump officials no matter what. I'm trying to ensure this and also trying to come up with a way to let officials know when they can make a decision on their own (something officials seem very much to want to do) while at the same time removing alot of work for them by allowing anyone to post an instruction based on a completed valid poll. If there is an official who wants to post all instructions in his department, makes that known, actually does it and doesn't ignore issues brought up by citizens then he will get the respect and first dibs you speak of. I don't see a problem here DaveShack.

We could do all of the above, instead of arguing over which way is better. An official who knows of an impending absense could designate a backup -- preferably the deputy unless we have a case where the deputy is a "deadbeat". If a citizen volunteers to cover an unexpected absense fine, if another official from a related area covers it, that's fine too.

DaveShack this has to be considered in lilght of our decision making hierarchy. If you are talking about handing over game play decision making ability then (again) I am dead set against that because it destroys the very foundation of the democracy we're trying to establish. Officials have the right (and they always have) to make decisions (by simply posting a game play instruction) when we don't make them as a group (via a poll or sometimes via discussion). Perhaps we's be more productive if we tabled the delegation of authority until after we've decided exactly what authority we're talking about. Maybe we're comparing the proverbial apple to the proverbial orange and wouldn't really disagree if we both looked at the same thing.

 

[zorven]

I prefer that a leader be able to designate their own deputy that is not already an elected leader. If anyone has a problem with the designee, then a confirmation poll can be posted. This deputy would serve at the will of the leader and would be able to post instructions to the DP (although the instructions could be superseded by a post from the leader).

As far as leaders not posting instructions, it seems logical to me that their backup is the President, the highest elected leader.