[DG2] Ruleset Proposal

[donsig]

Are you trying to suggest we start with no assignment of duties to officials? What would that leave us with, a President and a Judiciary, and nothing else to start the game? I guess it's one way to ensure the election for President is contested, given that all the other offices would probably have to be appointed. Effectively one person would completely control the whole first term.

Yes, DaveShack, that's exactly what I'm proposing. We start wirh one settler and a warrior, right. Why do we need more than one government official? We then create our government by initiative as the need arises. And please remember, we can discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials.

 

[ice2k4]

Yes, DaveShack, that's exactly what I'm proposing. We start wirh one settler and a warrior, right. Why do we need more than one government official? We then create our government by initiative as the need arises. And please remember, we can discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials.

This actually might be a better idea than a pre-defined ruleset. Although I would like a clause somewhere requiring for the citizens to meet and discuss about new official positions being created once a month, so the original President does not get away with loads of power. It actually makes a lot more sense, since we would be able to monitor the participation levels to coincide with the amount of positions. This way we don't write a ruleset with 10 positions and only 15 citizens. As long as we define a constitution, I'm in favor of this idea.

 

[DaveShack]

If we do it this way, we should have a special election to fill each new position created mid-term. A 2 day nomination and 2 day election poll should be sufficient. I don't want one person to appoint the entire government, even with a confirmation poll structure in place.

Another alternative would be to start with a list of positions but no details about what each position does other than its title. Have the people elected to the positions create their own job description on the fly. If/when conflicts develop where more than one official wants leadership of an area, have the President decide short-term who does it, and the citizens settle the final disposition via discussion and initiative.

Creating a new position might be as easy as a volunteer stepping up and doing the job, resolving conflicts with existing officials via the "President decides short-term, initiative long-term" method, and an initiative to make the office permanent.

Deleting offices would be as simple as the office goes vacant, nobody wants it, so the President divides up the responsibilities short-term and an Initiative deletes the offices and reassigns the duties to other offices. If the people think the new office should not be created or the old office should stay then the initiative doesn't pass.

 

[DaveShack]

And please remember, we can discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials.

It would be more correct to say we should be able to discuss, poll and make decisons even without elected officials. We both know it doesn't actually work that way -- in practice, areas with no official end up getting ignored.

 

[DaveShack]

While I don't personally have a problem with building the job assignments as we go, I would expect the idea to be met with significant resistance from the people who are not currently paying attention to what we're talking about. Playing devil's advocate a bit, some of the objections to this idea might be:

• We have several high contributors who are only active when they hold a position, or are more active when holding a position. Starting too small risks not getting support from the folks we should be able to count on to add energy at the beginning of the game.
• Many people are turned off by bickering. The inevitable turf war will not be pretty, and we risk scaring away the ones who don't like it.
• How is starting with a constitutional framework but little or no details different from any of the other times we've started with incomplete rules or with lots of ambiguities?
• Gee, that's an awful lot of power to give to one person (and perhaps his/her cronies). Sure this isn't a game of Despotism, or Oligarchy?

I think my suggestion in post #23 addresses some of these potential concerns, but maybe not all of them.

 

[ice2k4]

Another alternative would be to start with a list of positions but no details about what each position does other than its title. Have the people elected to the positions create their own job description on the fly. If/when conflicts develop where more than one official wants leadership of an area, have the President decide short-term who does it, and the citizens settle the final disposition via discussion and initiative.

Not sure that I like this idea as much, only because creating a few undescribed positions at the beginning of the game my throw us off with participation vs. office control.

We have several high contributors who are only active when they hold a position, or are more active when holding a position. Starting too small risks not getting support from the folks we should be able to count on to add energy at the beginning of the game.

This is a possible scenario, but the elections for the President (or beginning official) would create huge hype. Also after the first city is settled, a governor position may pop up, again which might be a big election and as soon as create a worker or settler there comes one or two more positions. Positions would be created rather quickly. Also with one player governing the first few turns the first few play sessions would go by rather quickly (it's possible the first 30 turns could be played in one session) and you might see as many as five new positions open by the second week.

Many people are turned off by bickering. The inevitable turf war will not be pretty, and we risk scaring away the ones who don't like it.

Well so can every other close debate. Democracy means that there are going to be a few turf wars. If you pay attention to the last DG, you would find a few heated debates. Once the distribution of a power is polled via initiative, the decision should stick. We could implement a limit, such as once a non-in-game initiative is made, it's decision can not be reversed or affected by another initiative until two weeks pass. This way people aren't constantly trying to get a decision overturned, yet they still have the power to do so.

Gee, that's an awful lot of power to give to one person (and perhaps his/her cronies). Sure this isn't a game of Despotism, or Oligarchy?

So we don't have to give him complete power. With atleast a constitution in place, we can limit his power. It shouldn't be hard to write a rule that limits the President's power, such as rules that state:


The Citizen's Assembly has the right to create a office and distribute powers as any time via a initiative poll.

The Citizen's Assembly has the right to impeach the President via recall poll with 51% of the non-abstain votes being yea.

Upon creation of a new position a two day nomination period followed by a two day election period will be held (and can be mid-term.) (Daveshack's idea.)

This way if the citizen's feel that the President is making too many unpolled decisions, they can simply impeach.

 

[Black_Hole]

Not sure that I like this idea as much, only because creating a few undescribed positions at the beginning of the game my throw us off with participation vs. office control.


This is a possible scenario, but the elections for the President (or beginning official) would create huge hype. Also after the first city is settled, a governor position may pop up, again which might be a big election and as soon as create a worker or settler there comes one or two more positions. Positions would be created rather quickly. Also with one player governing the first few turns the first few play sessions would go by rather quickly (it's possible the first 30 turns could be played in one session) and you might see as many as five new positions open by the second week.


Well so can every other close debate. Democracy means that there are going to be a few turf wars. If you pay attention to the last DG, you would find a few heated debates. Once the distribution of a power is polled via initiative, the decision should stick. We could implement a limit, such as once a non-in-game initiative is made, it's decision can not be reversed or affected by another initiative until two weeks pass. This way people aren't constantly trying to get a decision overturned, yet they still have the power to do so.


So we don't have to give him complete power. With atleast a constitution in place, we can limit his power. It shouldn't be hard to write a rule that limits the President's power, such as rules that state:


The Citizen's Assembly has the right to create a office and distribute powers as any time via a initiative poll.

The Citizen's Assembly has the right to impeach the President via recall poll with 51% of the non-abstain votes being yea.

Upon creation of a new position a two day nomination period followed by a two day election period will be held (and can be mid-term.) (Daveshack's idea.)

This way if the citizen's feel that the President is making too many unpolled decisions, they can simply impeach.

In my opinion those blue articles aren't needed... Currently one of the draft constitutions says: "Initiatives will have the binding force of law", so an initiative can basically do anything except amend the constitution
I also wouldn't put the stuff about nomination periods, there may be some occasions we won't have enough time for a 4 day period, and we could simply specify the time period in the initiative... Lets not put extra laws in our constitution...

 

[ice2k4]

In my opinion those blue articles aren't needed... Currently one of the draft constitutions says: "Initiatives will have the binding force of law", so an initiative can basically do anything except amend the constitution
I also wouldn't put the stuff about nomination periods, there may be some occasions we won't have enough time for a 4 day period, and we could simply specify the time period in the initiative... Lets not put extra laws in our constitution...

I just meant laws like that should be in place. I wasn't basing it on any current constitution or proposal, but I agree with what your saying.

 

[dutchfire]

Well done Ice, I appreciate any actual work done on this subject as it is the most important and most difficult of all.

Some small things:

A. All elections will be at the same time.

You state elsewhere that everyone should be elected at the beginning of term.

Floor votes:

to change civics

Even simple ones like to hereditary rule when you're spiritual (happened this game without poll).

a change in Taxes (the science/treasury/culture meter) greater that 10% more than once every 10 turns

Skrew taxes, a change in Taxes isn't that important, and should be up to the domestic/science minister.

D. If the Designated Player is unavailable to play at the designated time, the highest ranking member of the Triumvirate, or if no Triumvirate members are present, or those present decline to play the highest ranking Cabinet member, or if no Cabinet members are present, or those present decline to play a member of the Designated Player pool at the chat can choose to play the session in place of the Designated Player who is absent or the session can be canceled.

Triumvirate, Cabinet??? No thanks

2. The Designated Player must refuse all illegal instructions. The Designated Player may request a Judicial Review to determine the validity of an instruction and delay play until the Judicial Review has been completed.

May a DP do the same as the illegal instruction, if he wants to?