DG4 Discussion - Const: Article G

[ravensfire]

Question for the legal scholars amongst us.

Can we keep this section pretty much as it is, and place the absenteeism/deputy and interim position stuff in the CoL?

I think that we can, both from a "framer's intent" and from the general structure we've been following.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

"All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month."

Bingo, zorven. The election process and all that follows can be defined in the CoL. This wording will allow us to pursue any number of possibilities in our CoL without running afoul of our Constitution. The current wording is much more restrictive.

Ravensfire, I hope this answers your question as well. Let's modify the current wording slightly so that all these concepts are possible.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

Ravensfire, I hope this answers your question as well. Let's modify the current wording slightly so that all these concepts are possible.

Yup - it does. Just to make sure everyone notices, it does imply that mid-term vacancies will not be filled by election, but by some other means (which I greatly prefer!).

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I like this too, and agree with Ravensfire about mid-term vacancies.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think that this article is good as is, because mid term vacancies, deputies, etc... are not currently filled by an election. Election is the key word in that sentence.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

@Bill - The reason for our current struggle with this article stemmed from an incident where both the leader and his deputy resigned within a matter of days. It was then ruled by our Chief Justice that the third place vote-getter was entitled to the office, since "all offices" were "to be filled via election." Incidentally, deputies technically gain their position "via election," as they are the second-place vote-getter. I would like to phrase this Article carefully so that we are free to draft laws that will keep this type of incident from ever happening again.

So far, the best I have seen is from zorven. But I am still very interested in your opinion on this.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Ahhh, good follow up information. I find that ruling to be an interesting one, but certainly expedient.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Yes, and considering we only had a Constitution(no CoL) at the time, I do not blame the CJ at all.

Since it is my full intention to have a working CoL this game, my goal here is to broaden the scope of this article so that we are not hitting a brick wall when the time comes to write some laws.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by zorven
DaveShack - are you saying it should say terms start at the end of elections? What if we change the election schedule as has been discussed to include time between the end of elections and the beginning of the month? I think if you want to get more specific in this area it should go in the CoL.

well, I'm really trying to say that we should spell out that terms end at the end of the month, no matter when in the month an election is held. A strict interpretation of a term being a month could say that someone elected the 15th in a special election should stay in office until the next 15th.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
@Bill - The reason for our current struggle with this article stemmed from an incident where both the leader and his deputy resigned within a matter of days. It was then ruled by our Chief Justice that the third place vote-getter was entitled to the office, since "all offices" were "to be filled via election." Incidentally, deputies technically gain their position "via election," as they are the second-place vote-getter. I would like to phrase this Article carefully so that we are free to draft laws that will keep this type of incident from ever happening again.

So far, the best I have seen is from zorven. But I am still very interested in your opinion on this.

DZ - I think a major factor (as you point out in another post) is that the court was acting with an absence of framework at that point. There was no defined line of succession, so the court was forced to create one. Given the circumstances, and the need for a quick replacement ...

By addressing this in the CoL, we will be able to define the process as we see fit. 'Course, this could have been done in DG3 ... Oh wait, that's over. Gotta break that soapbox up for firewood!

I would like to see this article remain a broad statement, basically requiring elections for leader positions. The line of succession can be defined in the CoL.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by DaveShack


well, I'm really trying to say that we should spell out that terms end at the end of the month, no matter when in the month an election is held. A strict interpretation of a term being a month could say that someone elected the 15th in a special election should stay in office until the next 15th.

What if we defined special elections in the CoL?

I'm envisioning something like this:

Constitution: "Leaders elected to a fixed term"
-- Very brief, very general

CoL:
Elections:
-- Leaders elected to a one month term, beginning on the first day of the month and ending on the last day of that month.
-- Leaders appointed through interim appointments or elections serve a partial term, ending on the last day of the month they are confirmed in the office.

In the Con (difficult to change, etc), we say that leaders are elected to fixed terms. We have established the legal background for both the election and for the fixed term. We then, in the CoL (easier to change) define the fixed term as one month, and add an exeption for mid-term special elections and appointments. Note that I consider the raising of a deputy to the full office an appointment.

-- Ravensfire

 

[zorven]

I think Ravensfire's proposal is on track. How about:

"Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

I still think we need to either define Leaders or list the leaders this section applies to. I would prefer a list of definitions in the Constitution or in the CoL. We would just need to make sure that those terms defined are used apporpriately throughout the Constitution and CoL.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by zorven
I still think we need to either define Leaders or list the leaders this section applies to. I would prefer a list of definitions in the Constitution or in the CoL. We would just need to make sure that those terms defined are used apporpriately throughout the Constitution and CoL.

Could we define the list of leaders, and other election procedures, in the CoL and/or CoS? I would prefer the list to be in the CoL. I think we could put the election procedures in the third book, but that's a future discussion.

A glossary is not a bad idea as a reference. For those not familiar with it, part of the reason legalese seems so arcane is various words have certain, very specific definitions. Providing a list of the terms we use, and their meanings, could help prevent problems.

Fine, fine. I'll start on one, but will only update it as sections are ratified by the citizens.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Let's poll this, please. With the options we've discussed here, this is not going to be a difficult decision. This one's not rocket science and we can always change it later, if we need to.

 

[ravensfire]

Current list of poll options:

• Status Quo "All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month. "
• Removal of article, each branch specifies procedures
• "Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

Unless I hear that I missed an option, I plan to post a poll in about 6 hours.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

How about this one:

All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

Taken straight from the DG3 constitution (a great document, I might add).

Since *fixed terms* can be based on the real calender or turns we don't have to resume the calender versus turn based debate here.

Yes, deputies would still have to be elected but it is a democracy game after all.

There are ways to fill vacant deputy and leader positions without resorting to appointments.

 

[zorven]

@ donsig - I could swear I already had a post in this thread saying this, but here is the problem: "all offices". Does this mean the cartography office? the election office? the chat office? etc. This is why I suggested "Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law"

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by zorven
@ donsig - I could swear I already had a post in this thread saying this, but here is the problem: "all offices". Does this mean the cartography office? the election office? the chat office? etc. This is why I suggested "Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law"

No, it does not include offices such as those you mentioned. No matter which way we go we have to define something. Do we want to define leaders or offices?

Whichever way we go it boils down to the posting of game play instructions. In order to post legal and valid game play instructions a person should have been elected to a previously determined fixed length term and that person should be eligible to post game play instructions through only that one position.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I agree with donsig, the term "position", "leader", etc... should only apply to areas and jobs outlined in the laws.

 

[zorven]

Ok, I think the intent shown by some of you is this:

"All offices so designated by the legislature shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law."

And now that I read that, I wonder why even have it in the Constitution. Everything of substance is being left to the CoL and that makes this statement pointless.