DG4 Discussion - Const: Article D

[ravensfire]

As donsig just said, the Constitution should lay out the general titles and roles of our elected officials. These roles should be stated in a general way, then detailed more in the CoL.

The Constitution should give us the broad framework to base our system on. Difficult to change, it will remain fairly constant throughout the game.

The next body of law should describe in more detail the duties of each official. Easier to change, but still within the guidelines of the Constitution, this allows us to alter some aspects of our leaders as we progress.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

So, after about 40 hours of discussion and 20 replies, we basically have a mixed bag. Scanning the replies, it looks like we have 3 people who wish to have 3 Ministers, 3 people who like the idea of 6 Ministers, and 4 people who are undecided. These figures are debatable, but we seem to be drifting of course a bit.

A lot of the responses seem to be dependant of the role of the Senate in DG4. I think we can agree that Provinces will be smaller this game, so there will be more Governors. But we would have to start the game with a minimum of three if we are going to give the Senate specific duties. Unless we make the Senate comprised of Leaders other than Governors.

Can we please have the people posting here be a little more specific about what they would like to see in the Leadership structure. We don't have to be sprcific on job duties in these replies, but we do need to concentrate mor on the number of members in the Executive Branch. We're kind of going about this backwards. If we knew how many Leaders there were to be, then we could delegate responsibilty out to the different Departments. Discussing the responsibilities and trying to determine if they can be mixed or matched or farmed out after the elections is taking the long way to our goal.

 

[DaveShack]

I haven't had a chance to toss in my 2 gold before now due to the arrival of our new baby, but will try to squeeze in a few minutes now for that.

I like the idea of keeping all 6 leaders, and redistributing power. Ideally everyone who is elected should have roughly equal power, although that is unlikely in practice. We're trying to model splitting the brain of a single player into 9-20 parts, and certain sets of things like (tech rate and tech trading) and (happieness and lux trading) are inseparable.

Anyway, here are a few observations about effects I saw during DG3 which should be addressed here.

• Science chooses a tech queue, but there should be a strong interaction between what tech is researched and how high the slider is. This is really only an issue early in the game when a choice between min and max research is needed. How many civs we are in contact with is also a factor.
• Science needs to be linked with wonder building. We had two occurrances of choosing a research priority which rippled into wonder prebuilds not getting started, which meant that we didn't get the wonder.
• Under the system where the budget is owned by Domestic, often rushes are not requested, and in the case of my two terms as DL, I generally got an apathetic response when trying to discuss how the surplus should be used.

Making the senate responsible for the budget sounds appealing, as does ensuring that province size is held smaller. Also trying to make the provinces closer in production capability is a good idea. These ideas increase the chance that I'd be interested in being a governor.

An idea that I tossed out sometime in term 3 or 4 was the possibility of having the leader roles evolve as the game evolves.

For example, the relative importance of the Science Leader changes as the game progresses. The decisions of what to research and how much to spend on science are critical early, but as some have noted once we get to 4 or 5 turn research, there are few important choices left to be made.

Several people have suggested that the culture leader handle the cultural aspects of the forum in addition to those functions in the game. I'll also note that if we tried for a culture victory, then the CL would need to look at how early improvements and wonders can be built to achieve that victory type, while if we're going for another kind of victory the importance of that role diminishes.

That rambled a bit (baby interruptions ), so I'll toss something concrete in and see what happens.

The problem of balancing leader roles could be addressed by treating the 6 leaders as a council, with the President (or VP) holding a tie-breaking vote. Distribute the decision power for those items which span leader positions (science rate, science trades) by giving the council decision authority over those items.

 

[Cyc]

quoting Ravensfire:
As donsig just said, the Constitution should lay out the general titles and roles of our elected officials. These roles should be stated in a general way, then detailed more in the CoL.
________________________________________________

I'm not really agreeing with this statement. I think the only real roles defined in the Con would be those implied by the Title. Again the Con is a doc that should remain vague by design and one that is open to interpretation on a lot of issues that are laid out in it. There is no need to write any job descriptions in the Con. That is what the CoL and the CoS are for.

I've just finished writing Chapter 3 of the DG1 game history, where donsig invoked the Presidential veto on a Constitutional amendment. He claimed that there was no way a regulation about TCI procedures went into the Con, it belonged in the CoS. I find his reversal kind of amusing.

We don't need that much detail in the Constitution donsig and Ravensfire. Hi Ravensfire! We just need to list the Departments or those Department Leaders.

 

[donsig]

Now, Cyc, I haven't undergone any transformation. I still think the TCI procedures should be made by the president - at the president's *whim* to use someone else's term. If you're going to make judgements about my position then please use the definitions as I use them, not as you do. To me the CoS should be a set of procedures dictated by leaders, not a set uf rules made by citizens as you think they should be.

I am not striving for alot of detail in this article. But I do not think deciding the number of leaders we will have is much detail. In order for me to form an opinion of how many leaders we should have I need an idea of what each will be doing. If you want us to wait until we write the CoL to decide all that then let's just leave this article out.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig
Now, Cyc, I haven't undergone any transformation. I still think the TCI procedures should be made by the president - at the president's *whim* to use someone else's term. If you're going to make judgements about my position then please use the definitions as I use them, not as you do. To me the CoS should be a set of procedures dictated by leaders, not a set uf rules made by citizens as you think they should be.

I am not striving for alot of detail in this article. But I do not think deciding the number of leaders we will have is much detail. In order for me to form an opinion of how many leaders we should have I need an idea of what each will be doing. If you want us to wait until we write the CoL to decide all that then let's just leave this article out.

Hey donsig. I must insist that you have reversed your stance. I've just finished reviewing all the posts involved with the veto in DG1. You went to the extreme of invoking a Veto on a Constitutional amendment that was already approved by the citizens and had virtually passed a Council Vote approval because you felt the amendment was improper for the Con. You specifically requested (or demanded) that it be placed in the CoS as a procedure. You did not suggest that the procedures be left up to the President. If you are inferring that "whim" was a term I used, it was not in the context you use it in for the President. And I still believe the people should determine the procedures and laws of the nation by poll approval.

You're right about the number of Leaders not being much detail. We're all pretty much aware of the responsibilties of each of the 6 current Leaders, so determining the re-distribution of those responsibilities shouldn't be to difficult to figure out with a pen and paper if you know how many Leaders there will be. If you want to do it your way, donsig, work it out so that you take ALL of the duties necessary to move the game along and try to hone it down to as few Leaders as you can. That way we can have a short list of Leaders that determine most of what goes on in the game. That way, although it will be less Democratic and more burdensome to the elected officials, you can come up with the number of Leaders you desire. But you see, I already know what bases need to be covered and 6 Leaders seem to be the right number to cover those duties. It's more Democratic also. Plus more people get to experience the fun of being a Leader. But that's just me. I also thought we were trying to get this done by the end of the year, not bring up pointless questions and propose criss-crossing across this entire process to prove one's point.

 

[donsig]

Bold items Originally posted by Cyc
Hey donsig. I must insist that you have reversed your stance. I've just finished reviewing all the posts involved with the veto in DG1. You went to the extreme of invoking a Veto on a Constitutional amendment that was already approved by the citizens and had virtually passed a Council Vote approval because you felt the amendment was improper for the Con. You specifically requested (or demanded) that it be placed in the CoS as a procedure. You did not suggest that the procedures be left up to the President. If you are inferring that "whim" was a term I used, it was not in the context you use it in for the President. And I still believe the people should determine the procedures and laws of the nation by poll approval.

Cyc, my friend, when I was talking about the CoS in DG1 I was talking about procedures that would be made solely by leaders. I was not talking about the proving ground that Shaitan turned the CoS into. IIRC, the technical reason I objected to the TCI amendment was that it called for the save to be attached to a post rather than uploaded to the server. I had hoped to use the technical reason to show the sillyness of putting TCI procedures in the constitution. (To change from attaching the save to uploading the save with a link would have required another amendment!) In other words the technical reason should have illustrated the general reason for the veto. The general reason was that there were some things of an administrative nature (like the TCI thread) that our elected leaders should have some control over. Use the CoL to make the instruction thread mandatory and define things like who can post there but for crying out loud let the leaders format the details! My position has not changed since DG1. Citizens do not have to be polled on every detail.

You're right about the number of Leaders not being much detail. We're all pretty much aware of the responsibilties of each of the 6 current Leaders, so determining the re-distribution of those responsibilities shouldn't be to difficult to figure out with a pen and paper if you know how many Leaders there will be. If you want to do it your way, donsig, work it out so that you take ALL of the duties necessary to move the game along and try to hone it down to as few Leaders as you can. That way we can have a short list of Leaders that determine most of what goes on in the game. That way, although it will be less Democratic and more burdensome to the elected officials, you can come up with the number of Leaders you desire. But you see, I already know what bases need to be covered and 6 Leaders seem to be the right number to cover those duties. It's more Democratic also. Plus more people get to experience the fun of being a Leader. But that's just me. I also thought we were trying to get this done by the end of the year, not bring up pointless questions and propose criss-crossing across this entire process to prove one's point.

Yes, Cyc, I am aware of the resposibilites of the leaders as we have used them. I am also aware that domestic is too powerful, while culture has no power at all. I'm also aware that trade and science overlap. I asked you earlier how we could at least come up with some idea how we can keep six leaders, reduce conflicting spheres of influence, distribute the workload evenly and give all six leaders some tanglible duties and responsibilites but you never replied. You say you have the magic number of leaders but you avoid the tough questions that have been raised here. I see no point in electing impotent science and culture leaders. If the science leader is only going to post polls about the science queue I'm sure a real leader can find someone to do that well enough. We will not achieve greater democrary by having more leaders. We will achieve greater democracy through proper discussion and polling practices.

Unless you can come up with a means of fixing the ills of the six leader system we've been using I'm in favor of throwing the power of the purse (including the sliders) to the Senate / Governors (especially if we have mayors doing build queues), and having three leaders (domestic/culture, foreign/trade/science and military).

 

[Cyc]

donsig, my friend, I do not want to argue with you anymore. I have read your explanation of your Veto addressed to the public and it does not coincide with your above statement. I also conversed with you at that time through PM's and by these conversations, I was brought into your motivations for invoking the Veto. I guess that about sums up my opinion of your last post.

As far as your next paragraphs, you seem to have gone to the great effort of deciding that 3 Leaders is what you wish to have. It's that simple. Why do we need to argue about this? You're done. Now you can move on and assign duties to your three Leaders. Of course it might be better to wait and make sure 3 Leaders is what wins the poll. Also you may not want to hold onto the idea of saying that we only need three Leaders because we're going to shovel a lot of work onto some phantom Leaders that will go unregulated. A bad idea.

I'm done arguing.

EDIT: Post 4300

 

[Fier Canadien]

It seems that we're stuck in the 6/3 leader idea. How about polling it and then continuing discussion considering only the winning option?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I have no strong feeling either way on 6 vs. 3. Unless 3 is the option, then I am certain I would prefer Military and FA seperate.

I think the Constitution merely has to define what jobs are required. The specific details of those job responsibilities should be in the CoL, especially if we are going to experiment with the idea of shifting responsibilities.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
donsig, my friend, I do not want to argue with you anymore. I have read your explanation of your Veto addressed to the public and it does not coincide with your above statement. I also conversed with you at that time through PM's and by these conversations, I was brought into your motivations for invoking the Veto. I guess that about sums up my opinion of your last post.

As far as your next paragraphs, you seem to have gone to the great effort of deciding that 3 Leaders is what you wish to have. It's that simple. Why do we need to argue about this? You're done. Now you can move on and assign duties to your three Leaders. Of course it might be better to wait and make sure 3 Leaders is what wins the poll. Also you may not want to hold onto the idea of saying that we only need three Leaders because we're going to shovel a lot of work onto some phantom Leaders that will go unregulated. A bad idea.

I'm done arguing.

EDIT: Post 4300

Veto address. I'm glad you're done arguing Cyc because I re-read my veto message and I don't see how my earlier post in this thread contradicts what I said back in DG1.

As for making up my mind to go with three leaders instead of six I guess you are right since the concerns I have about having the old six leaders have not been addressed. Now the question is, do we have to wait and poll 3 versus 6 leaders before we can write this constitutional clause?

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
Now the question is, do we have to wait and poll 3 versus 6 leaders before we can write this constitutional clause?

I would suggest the following poll:

Article D of the Constitution defines in broad terms the offices of the Executive Branch. The discussion has reached a decision point on how this branch of Government should be structured. Therefore, it is requested that the People answer the following question: Shall the Executive Branch consist of a President and six leaders, the approach used in the previous games, or use an alternate structure to be determined in future discussion. Please note that the duties of each leader are NOT implied in this vote, only the general structure of the Executive Branch.

Usual poll stuff goes here.

As a another option, I would suggest gathering 5 or 6 (or more) options, then post a multi-choice poll. We would then return for more discussion on the top 3 choices for 2 or 3 days, then vote amongst those options.

Regretably, I think that any discussion on the Legislative Branch will be stalled until this issue is resolved as several of the proposals shift duties traditionally held by the Executive Branch to the Senate and require changes to that Branch.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

With regards to the idea of having the Senate control the purse strings - I really like that idea. It has been correctly pointed out that should we go with such an option, we will need to have at least three members of the Senate at all times.

To do this, I would propose that we immediately elect 1 Provincial Governor. They would control all cities built during that first term of office, assuming no new provinces were created. In addition, a new position, Governor-at-large, would be created.

We would elect either 1 or 2 Governors, enough to assume that, at the beginning of the term, there would be an odd number of Senate members. As new provinces were created, instead of mid-term elections, the at-large Governors would take over, using total votes to determine seniority.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

In the 5 and a half days of discussion, we've seen only proposals for 3 Leaders serving the President and 6 Leaders serving the President, Ravensfire.

In your first suggested poll, you have 6 Leaders facing any change what so ever. Every change what so ever has not been brought up in this thread. That's pretty much impossible.

In your second suggested poll, you have six Leaders serving the President against 4 or 5 other choices. Again the people have not proposed 4 or 5 other choices.

These are very slanted polls in my opinion. As stated above, only 2 choices have been raised and discussed and only 3 should be on a poll for this issue. They are 3 or 6 Leaders, and abstain. Please refrain from making biased or lopsided polls.

 

[Octavian X]

I proposed something of the same when DG2 started, rather using the term senators-at-large (which, imho, makes a bit more sense, as they don't have governing powers).

If we are to give the Senate more responsibility (something I do honestly like), I'd like to see the VP set in charge of the Senate, to run it's daily affairs. Gives something for this office to do.

However, if donsig's Article A-C proposal does go through, I'd just call this whole discusion moot for the moment. It seems to me that we shouldn't bother to define the positions in the constitution, as I see those positions and their responsibilies as more fluid items that should change as the game progresses.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
In the 5 and a half days of discussion, we've seen only proposals for 3 Leaders serving the President and 6 Leaders serving the President, Ravensfire.

In your first suggested poll, you have 6 Leaders facing any change what so ever. Every change what so ever has not been brought up in this thread. That's pretty much impossible.

In your second suggested poll, you have six Leaders serving the President against 4 or 5 other choices. Again the people have not proposed 4 or 5 other choices.

These are very slanted polls in my opinion. As stated above, only 2 choices have been raised and discussed and only 3 should be on a poll for this issue. They are 3 or 6 Leaders, and abstain. Please refrain from making biased or lopsided polls.

Cyc,

To be accurate, it's just about anything other than biased. A 3 leader, 6 leader or abstain poll is quite biased against any other option. Rejecting it before anyone proposes it is folly. Please refrain from prior restraint of ideas.

My decision for the 6 or some other process is based upon the decision that has already been made to base things off of DG2, unless a change is decided upon.

Well, do people want to change the current Executive Branch or not? Let's poll that, and see if we need bother further with this discussion.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

My point remains basically the same Ravensfire. You want to include "whatever" in the poll. Whatever has not been discussed in this thread.

It has been 36 days since you first posted about putting together a DG4 Constitution. 36 DAYS. So for we are down to Article D and trying to figure out how many Leaders we should have in DG4.

Do what you want.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think the poll should be 6 or 3.

 

[donsig]

Perhaps we need to decide the role of the Senate / governors here as well. I never liked the governor = senator idea for it mixes the executive and legislative branches. By giving governors the power of the purse and removing their legislative responsibilites we can include governors in the executive branch and cover them in this article.

Can we somehow combine the *governor-without-a-province / governor-in-wating / governor-at-large* idea with the *science and culture leaders are useless* idea? If we need three governors to start out let's have them be:

Governor #1 in charge of capital city
Governor #2 the science guru
Governor #3 the culture guru

With all three governors (as a group) controlling the treasury and the sliders.

Of course they would still be governors ultimately responsible for build queues but if we have mayors helping out the work load should be bearable.

If we decide we want to keep the traditional six leaders we should let culture handle wonder building and let science set the sliders. The power of the purse could remain with domestic or go to the governors - but which ever way we go the *power of the purse* should be spelled out in the constitution and not left for the code of laws.

 

[FortyJ]

I would propose a compromise to this debate, but I'm not going to, so don't read this post.

Instead of eliminating the Culture Advisor (which has been suggested in other posts), we should combine it with Domestic. The roles are compatible, if not redundant.

Also, there have been terms in recent DGs in which the Science Advisor basically does nothing but watch the Trade Leader acquire advance after advance. I remember numerous criticisms of the Science Leader for not having posted a discussion thread and related poll for a science queue over several terms. Why not combine those two offices as many of our trades will involve technologies (either outgoing or incoming).

Other than that, leave the others alone. FA can still direct all embassies and intelligence agency activities as well as oversee any and all alliances. Military can still control deployment and use of military forces.

Four advisors is a fair compromise between those people that feel that too many offices exist in the Executive branch and those that feel that three advisors is too few. My non-proposal is four advisors: Internal Affairs (formerly Domestic and Culture), Trade & Technology (formerly Trade and Science), Foreign Affairs, and Military.

<><><><>

Also, this certainly belongs in another thread, so ignore this as well....

I would suggest a revamping of the Legislature. A fixed Senate of 3 senators oversees the allocation of funds and the passing of laws. The senate would have direct control over the distribution of national funds (ie. the sliders).

The second tier of the legislature would be made up of all the mayors in the nation. Mayors would be voted in by the local residents of each city except for the capitol and FP city which would be governed by the Internal Affairs advisor and his/her deputy respectively.

Thank you for not reading this and please do not interpret this as my desire to take part in this debate.