[DG2] - Ratification and Amendments

[DaveShack]

We haven't really discussed the amendment process, not enough to make decisions about how we want the initial rules to look.

1. What voting threshold do we want for initial ratification?
2. What voting threshold do we want for an amendment to be ratified?
3. Should the Judiciary be able to prevent an amendment from coming to a vote?

 

[DaveShack]

My opinions:

1. A majority is sufficient. I'd like to see 100% in the actual vote, but prefer the rule be one more yes vote than no.

2. A majority is sufficient. I'd like to see 100% in the actual vote, but prefer the rule be one more yes vote than no.

3. Absolutely not. I would like the Judiciary to say whether an amendment will or won't conflict with existing laws, and leave it at that. The proponent can then poll it or not poll it, and the citizens can ratify with the conflicts, or vote it down. I would like the conflicts to be resolved by the "last ratification wins" method, meaning that if there is a conflict between an amendment and existing law, the amendment prevails in subsequent JRs.

 

[Black_Hole]

Are you talking about Constitution amendments, Code of Laws amendments, or both?

 

[donsig]

If you're talking about Constitutional amendments DaveShack then:

Supermajority to ratify (two thirds or three-fourths)

Majority is fine if you use a census. A 3-2 vote on an amendment should not fly.

Yes, the judiciary should be able to block amendments that would create conflicts with the rest of the unamended constitution.

Your last man standing system is great for initiatives and a CoL but not for the Constitution. Let's try and make a freaking constitution that we can pass on to the next game. (You'd think after almost ten DGs we'd have done that long ago. ) I've already proposed a good Constitution (based on your last Constitution DaveShack) that can stand the test of time. Let's not screw around and allow our hard work to be blown away by a couple votes in the heat of some stupid controversy.

 

[DaveShack]

Are you talking about Constitution amendments, Code of Laws amendments, or both?

If you have different opinions for different kinds of rules, please specify.

 

[zorven]

Let's try and make a freaking constitution that we can pass on to the next game. (You'd think after almost ten DGs we'd have done that long ago. )

I gave up on that pipe dream after several attempts!

I like the idea of making the constitution harder to change, therefore requiring more than a simple majority. However, regarding a census, how would this be implemented? I am not sure I would like a 3-1 vote that changes the constitution.

I support the ability of the judiciary to block votes on amendments that, if passed, would conflict with the constitution (as amended).

 

[Falcon02]

Let's not screw around and allow our hard work to be blown away by a couple votes in the heat of some stupid controversy.

Even if we did... people would always want to "try new things" to see if they could improve the game. And not everyone agrees the same way on different things, so things which they didn't like about the previous constitution they move to change in the new one... etc., etc.


But In general I agree with Donsig's admendment requirements.

 

[donsig]

Even if we did... people would always want to "try new things" to see if they could improve the game. And not everyone agrees the same way on different things, so things which they didn't like about the previous constitution they move to change in the new one... etc., etc.

But we don't need to change the constitution every time we want to change what we're doing. A nice basic constitution would allow us to make easy changes either from game to game or within a game. Think of the constitution as a framework upon which to build our game. We want a solid framework that we can all agree on and that we should not then monkey around with.

 

[donsig]

I have propsed a constitution for ratification. There have been no suggestions for specific changes to my proposal for two days. I plan to post a ratification poll tonight.

 

[DaveShack]

I'd suggest waiting for the new forum to open.

 

[donsig]

I'd suggest waiting for the new forum to open.

When will that be? If we're looking to start by February 1 then we need to make some progress.

 

[Cyc]

I stand with donsig on these issues, as stated in post 4 of this thread. These are reasonable and justified requirements.

Not that it matters, I still can't vote in these forums. The mods must be on permenent vacation.

Let's get this road on the show.

 

[dutchfire]

Not that it matters, I still can't vote in these forums. The mods must be on permenent vacation.

Speaking of which, it might be good to have some other people around to allow people to join the usergroup. We're not going to attract a lot of attention if people *can't* join.

 

[DaveShack]

Maybe today if there are no forum outages. (leaving TF wiggle room )

Speaking of which, it might be good to have some other people around to allow people to join the usergroup. We're not going to attract a lot of attention if people *can't* join.

A hint has been dropped. If no action, then a more forceful suggestion will be made.