DG4 Discussion - Const: Article D

[Cyc]

I agree with 40J, partly. He's hit the nail on the head about letting the runner-up in the Presidential Election hold the office of VP. That is IF we are forced to have a VP. Personally, I don't believe we need one, but it would reward a Presidential Candidate that just missed being President with a title. The Chain of Command would take care of any Presidential absence. The Domestic Leader could step up and take over the DP duties un til the President returns or until the end of the Term. If the Domestic Leader (DL) didn't have time to do this, he could either transfer authority to a back-up DP or it could fall to the next person on the COC. I don't think the burden would be that great.

But I definitely can't see a reason to have a separate election for a VP. If you don't want to be President and run in the Presidential race, then you don't want to be VP either. You would just be taking up space.

As far as elections of Mayors, I would rather see that than the appointment of Mayors. Although up to this point I was fully for Governors appointing Mayors, this game is changing, so this rule should also. The appointment process would cause problems, I believe. The incentive of winning local elections for Mayors will increase movement and participation, as 40J said.

I'm not sure I like the idea of doing away with Governors and letting the Mayors handle the city build queues. With that the build queues would not be grouped by Province. Towards the end of the game, we'd have 50 some posts for build queues and this would be too much pre-turn work for the President/DP. Grouping BQ's in Province posts is much better.

Overall, I still say Bill has a well rounded plan or approach to the situation. I have abandoned my stance for 6 Leaders, as it appears the people want change. But let's not spend a lot of time here, we need to move on.

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by Cyc
I'm not sure I like the idea of doing away with Governors and letting the Mayors handle the city build queues. With that the build queues would not be grouped by Province. Towards the end of the game, we'd have 50 some posts for build queues and this would be too much pre-turn work for the President/DP. Grouping BQ's in Province posts is much better.

You've come across my only concern with mayorial control of build queues. However, if we're going to retain provincial governors, then we could have the mayors submit their queues to the governors and let the governors post the summary for their respective provinces in the instruction thread. Any city whose mayor fails to submit instructions to the governor may have its build queue overridden by the governor.

A good mayor would theoretically post a full queue for his/her town - not just "City A builds unit X". Posting a list of production items for up to 20 turns into the future should allow a mayor to submit changes to the queue as needed with sufficient time for the governors to collect and summarize the instructions for the official instruction thread.

But let's not spend a lot of time here, we need to move on.

I don't get it. You mean there's more to discuss?

 

[ravensfire]

I'm going to come out against the idea of a local mayor having absolute control over the build queue of a city.

Assuming we have local elections, a good mayor, by definition, must be concerned with their city first, the province second, the country third. As a local voter, I will always vote for a mayor that looks out for my city first, the country second. After all, the President and Senate are supposed to look after the country, right?

Many times, cities must be managed for the good of the province/country. An example are the many fishing villages that are developed. In DG3 we have several such cities that grew so large they were taking land away from larger, more productive cities.

I'm also extremely concerned about workers and worker actions. During my term as President, the only part of the game I dreaded was the chaos of handling demands from Governors. I had the Governors list their top three request, now I have to deal with requests from Mayors?

Staying with the instructions, Cyc is correct that from about the mid-point on, it takes a fair amount of time for the DP to compile all the listed instructions from just the Governors. Several times there were no instructions posted from a Governor. More often, a Governor was able to step in and post instructions for a mayor that didn't do their job. At least if an entire province is missing, the cities are grouped together, making the management easier.

Bouncing around a bit, I really like the idea of 1 city, 1 mayor for the entire game. Remove them for cause, but let them run the city otherwise. I just can't see local elections working well, barring a game variant. We have 20-30 active citizens, figure 2-3 people per city except for older cities. No, let the governor appoint a mayor, not an election.

Local elections also introduces more issues - how often to elect? Same election cycle? Secret ballot, or public? If it's secret, how to restrict? If it's public, why only for local, not for national?

There are more reasons, but I've run out of time for now. Please, keep mayors the way they are. The current system works, and works well, let's keep it that way.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Some random thoughts:

1) Governors can still control land use within a province. If the fishing villages are using land that should be used by more productive cities then let the governor adjust the use of land.

2) Local elections would require a census. We could appoint a census officer (who wouldn't mind doing some work). We could set a monthly census time for the purposes of establishing residency. Say the 10th of the month. The census officer compiles the official list of where everyone lives on the specified date. That is what is used for local elections. Why not have mayors elected for one month as well? We could have local elections on the 15 of the month. Let the governors *be in charge* of local elections. Make them open where each citizen that wants to vote for mayor has to post their vote. BTW, I would do this for national elections as well for it would eliminate any taint of suggested election fraud.

3) Workers have been a problem throughout the demogames. If we're not comfortable with letting the president handle the workers then we need a way 1) divvying up the workers and 2) getting legal worker instructions posted. I thought individual units could be named in PTW and such a devise would enable workers to be tagged which might help keep them grouped by province or city. of course using PTW was nixed once again...

 

[FortyJ]

Originally posted by ravensfire
Bouncing around a bit, I really like the idea of 1 city, 1 mayor for the entire game. Remove them for cause, but let them run the city otherwise.

Err... no offense, but if they have control over neither the build queue nor the land development, then what exactly are they responsible for while "running" their cities?

Mayors are a novelty to the game in their current fashion. If we desire to keep them that way, so be it. But I still don't see why we can't let the mayors run their cities, report their instructions to the Governors, and let the governors report those instructions to the DP in the official thread. It would be like a government within a government - beautifully decentralized - a democratic utopia.

Local elections also introduces more issues - how often to elect? Same election cycle? Secret ballot, or public? If it's secret, how to restrict? If it's public, why only for local, not for national?

I would let them hold office indefinitely, or until somebody called for a new election. Especially if they are held locally. To keep this simple, the mayor could be responsible for posting a link to the Census Office in the first post of his thread, or even listing the citizens in his/her city. Elections could even be held within the City Thread.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by FortyJ
Err... no offense, but if they have control over neither the build queue nor the land development, then what exactly are they responsible for while "running" their cities?

Mayors are a novelty to the game in their current fashion. If we desire to keep them that way, so be it. But I still don't see why we can't let the mayors run their cities, report their instructions to the Governors, and let the governors report those instructions to the DP in the official thread. It would be like a government within a government - beautifully decentralized - a democratic utopia.
City Thread.

Actually, yes - I do want to keep them as they were in DG3 - advisors. Governors should be elected to run the province. To me, that means land allocation, worker requests and build queues. A good mayor is invaluable in assisting a Governor, but the ultimate authority should always lie with the Gov. We have centalized responsibility with localized advice.

If there is a concern within a province, the citizens know where to go. If a leader has a specific request (more workers / settlers / troops), they only need to post in the Provincial threads to make the Governors aware of the request.

The entire local election idea is a hopeless pipe dream, ripe for abuse. How many citizens do most of our cities have - one. The mayor. Yes - a true democracy! One citizen - one vote!

So in a vain attempt to bring this back to the so-called topic, where, oh where, is this discussion going? How many different options for our government structure do we have now? Where is this runaway process going? Is there a desire amongst the citizens of our country to change the structure of the government? If so, how radical of a change?

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Ravensfire, our cities never get any citizens to move there because there has never been any reason to do so. Give mayors some power, have them elected locally and citizens will move about the country. It would add another dimension to the game and give more people reason to participate. Let's try it and see. If it's a pipe dream then we'll know soon enough and can drop it.

As for where the discussion is going, well, it's going no where. What's the point in this discussion? We seem to have come to agreement on preamble through C but there are those who do not want to finalize any decision. If we're not goping to make decisions why discuss them?

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire


Actually, yes - I do want to keep them as they were in DG3 - advisors. Governors should be elected to run the province. To me, that means land allocation, worker requests and build queues. A good mayor is invaluable in assisting a Governor, but the ultimate authority should always lie with the Gov. We have centalized responsibility with localized advice.

If there is a concern within a province, the citizens know where to go. If a leader has a specific request (more workers / settlers / troops), they only need to post in the Provincial threads to make the Governors aware of the request.

The entire local election idea is a hopeless pipe dream, ripe for abuse. How many citizens do most of our cities have - one. The mayor. Yes - a true democracy! One citizen - one vote!

So in a vain attempt to bring this back to the so-called topic, where, oh where, is this discussion going? How many different options for our government structure do we have now? Where is this runaway process going? Is there a desire amongst the citizens of our country to change the structure of the government? If so, how radical of a change?

-- Ravensfire

Heheh. Now you're starting to sound like me. Ravensfire. Mere moments ago you were telling me how you wanted to radically change the structure of the government, just to have a change. Me thinks you have reversed your stance be cause someone has proposed something you don't agree with.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc


Heheh. Now you're starting to sound like me. Ravensfire. Mere moments ago you were telling me how you wanted to radically change the structure of the government, just to have a change. Me thinks you have reversed your stance be cause someone has proposed something you don't agree with.

Nah, just want to get the process going. I've got a slightly different idea of the route, but we both want to get to DG4!

I guess you are right though, some ideas are a bit too radical for me. I talk the radical, but walk the moderate! Just don't start telling me to listen to Rush* - I'm not that drugged up!

-- Ravensfire

* The guy from Missourah, not the trio from up north! And yes, the spelling is intentional - that's just about how they pronounce it in Cape.

 

[Cyc]

quoting Ravensfire:
* The guy from Missourah, not the trio from up north! And yes, the spelling is intentional - that's just about how they pronounce it in Cape.

You mean Limbaugh wears a cape now? Man, that guy is on good drugs...

 

[donsig]

I would like to formally propose that we drop this article from the constitution.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig
I would like to formally propose that we drop this article from the constitution.

We really didn't need another wrench thrown into the gears from out of the blue, but I suppose you've now introduced another proposed alternative for us all to consider.

 

[donsig]

It's not out of the blue Cyc. I suggested it earlier in this thread. We should either make a decision about this we can live with or decide to decide later and completely drop it for now so we can move on.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
I would like to formally propose that we drop this article from the constitution.

[sarcasm]
Sounds good to me! Who needs the executive branch anyway?
[/sarcasm]

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Well, if we could ever agree to nail down article C we'd have an executive branch. Article D is not about *will we have an executive branch* it is about *the form the executive branch will take*.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I still don't see the need for a VP, and if we give them more power, it comes at the expense of another office, or the Presidency itself, both of which are bad ideas, IMHO. But, again, as a predetermined backup, I think it has some value I suppose.

I think mayors, with a citizenship requirement along the lines donsig outlined is a good way to spur participation, and if a mayor or two is going against the desires of the President, then good for them. It become incumbent on each group to discuss their reasoning and compromise. Either way, it keeps the forums moving with discussion about the game.

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I still don't see the need for a VP

I personaly beleve that there is a need for a Vice President. What if the President cant make it to the desginated Scedualed Turn Chat and the Vice President is present. The Vice President can take over for the President while the President is away (IE away due to RL Obligations).
During the time that the President is still present in the forums. The Vice President can be used as the persion incharge of the senate and can cast a tie breaking vote in the senate section.
In conclusion, I beleve that the Vice President is the most esential part of the Demogame since it gives the persion who is an aspiering president to get a chance to play the save and to get the real feel of DPing.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I am happy to go along with the VP thing, it isn't that big a deal to me. I just point out that all of those things you ascribe to the VP, can in fact be done by a Chain of Command in the executive branch.

The VP is a "what if" type position. Perhaps we need that in reserve, but most VP's never end up doing anything, compared to say, a domestic leader, or military leader.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I still don't see the need for a VP,

So let us ask ourselves, what is the VP?

DG3 doesn't even mention the VP - it was a carry-over from previous games.

DG2 mentions the VP - "The Vice President assumes all powers and responsibilities of the Presidency during the absence of the President."

Basically, the VP is the only deputy with a title other than, well, deputy. That's a good way to keep it - a deputy. I don't see any need to expand the role of this, or any other deputy in a body of law. If the elected official wants to delegate duties to their deputy - that's fine with me. But let's leave that up to the official.

-- Ravensfire

 

[FortyJ]

You pretty much summarized my feelings on the role of the VP perfectly, ravensfire. He/she is essentially the Presidential Deputy.

My concern with removal of this position is not centered on the turn chats or the playing of the game, but rather the time between turns. If the President is unable to fulfill his/her obligations between turns, it would be better for the VP to take on that responsibility instead of delegating it to any member of the Executive council who is already burdened with the responsibilities of his/her office.