DG4 Discussion - Const: Article H

[ravensfire]

Hmmm,

"No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office in the Executive or Judicial branch of the Government."

Yeah, I know - possible questions about if that means 1 office in Executive AND 1 office in Judicial, or does it mean 1 office in Executive OR 1 office in Judicial. Obviously I'm trying for the second - I'm struggling a bit around the wording.

I'm not comfortable with the "posting instructions" section - we just don't know if every office that will be in the various branches of the Government can post instructions. This gives us the flexibility we need, while conveying the intention we want. There is no mention of elections or appointment - it simply restricts a person to holding 1 position.

Now, I can think of some issues, mostly around deputies. However, I think *any* proposal will have them. I think that when we define deputies, we ought to eliminate anyone currently holding an office from being one. I would even go so far as to limit a person to being only 1 deputy.

Consider this case. If we use the wording based on posting game play instructions, and give deputies the power to post instructions in limited circumstances, a citizen may be an official or a deputy, never both, and never for more than one office.

We've removed all offices from the Legislative branch - it's now the People's branch, so it makes no sense to restrict it. I can see adding Legislative to the clause in case we create a new office, and would not be opposed to that.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

I understand that no one can have more than one Leader Possition. But what about Deputies. Can a persion hold more than one Depity possitions (I would recomend a limit of 2, just so that tey dont overexstend themselves).

BTW, Sorry if I am steping on anyone's shoes if I am bringing in the Deputy topic.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by donsig


Well, boostoots, I would give justices the power to post game play instructions under certain circumstances (to be determined when we write the CoL). I am not advocating that someone be allowed to be on the judiciary and hold another office at the same time. How about this: if we adopt this wording here we also put a caveat in the judicial article stating that any member of the judiciary cannot hold another office. Or better yet, I will revise my proposal.

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions. Any member of the judiciary cannot simultaneously hold another office empowered to post game play instructions.

That I can agree with, as long as it's also clear that nobody can hold multiple judicial positions simultaneously.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire

I'm not comfortable with the "posting instructions" section - we just don't know if every office that will be in the various branches of the Government can post instructions. This gives us the flexibility we need, while conveying the intention we want. There is no mention of elections or appointment - it simply restricts a person to holding 1 position.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

Could we possibly decide who can and can't post game play instructions? That's a pretty general idea. We don't have to get into the exact circumstances under which instructions can be posted but we should be able to decide now whether judiciary members and deputies could ever post instructions.

 

[ravensfire]

I am quite comfortable with deputies posting instructions, under certain limited circumstances - see other discussion.

I would prefer to not see the Judiciary post instructions, but direct that a specific leader post a specific instruction.

Instructions are supposed to come from the leaders, not from the Judiciary. The Judiciary should be there to interpret rule questions, ensure elections are done right, help out on proposed legislation and dealing with events that violate DG laws. The remedy I would like to see used more is a directive to a leader to post an instruction resulting in a specific outcome.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

I am starting to feel like TerminalMan90 here. Most of my posts have gone largely ignored.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I am starting to feel like TerminalMan90 here. Most of my posts have gone largely ignored.

CG - that's rather far from accurate. Many of your posts state your position - "I want to see XYZ for issue PDQ". There is nothing wrong with that - you are expressing your viewpoint on the issue. You are not, however, posting a statement that needs a reply.

In general, the posts that generate replies are ones that advocate a specific idea or proposal, and the reasoning behind it. I could post that "I think Article H should require all citizens to post in all caps!" If there was a reply at all, it would be essentially asking "Why?". When a person jumps into a discussion with a proposal, there is an expectation that they will include the reasons for that proposal.

Participation is key, and the more the merrier. But participation involves more than just jumping and shouting "Me too!" or tossing out a proposal without some basic reasoning.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I understand that no one can have more than one Leader Possition. But what about Deputies. Can a persion hold more than one Depity possitions (I would recomend a limit of 2, just so that tey dont overexstend themselves).

BTW, Sorry if I am steping on anyone's shoes if I am bringing in the Deputy topic.

I think sentiment is running pretty strongly towards one position, either leader or deputy, meaning that being a deputy for two offices would be prohibited.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig


Could we possibly decide who can and can't post game play instructions? That's a pretty general idea. We don't have to get into the exact circumstances under which instructions can be posted but we should be able to decide now whether judiciary members and deputies could ever post instructions.

I'm not sure it matters if the judiciary can post instructions or not. They should be prohibited from holding another office to avoid conflicts of interest in the JR and PI procedures.

 

[GenMarshall]

The Judicary, IIRC, cannot post instructions.

 

[DaveShack]

I think I'll quote myself in hopes that bumping this to the bottom of the list will help y'all recognize that there is another alternative to the other things being discussed here.

Originally posted by DaveShack
I would prefer to continue using the runner-up as the deputy, but allow a leader without a deputy (as in the case of an uncontested election, or when a deputy resigns, or the deputy takes over the office) appoint one and present that person to the people in a nomination thread followed by a ratification poll. The only difference between this and a special election is that the deputy would be immediately empowered to act in the leaders absense if necessary, where in the special election case there is nobody to fill the office until the election closes.

Another alternative would be to have the president, the senate, or the executive council (assuming we have one) appoint an interim deputy (or even leader) during the special election process.

A third alternative is to give the largely ceremonial VP the ability to fill in for absent leaders, in which case no deputy is needed -- unless you're worried the VP could get god-like status by having all the other leaders resign en-masse...

The more discussion I see, the more I think this needs to be branch specific. Here are some examples which would need further work.

• Members of the judiciary may not hold any other position which is subject to disciplinary action.
• The president may not hold any other position. (I tend to even think the president needs to appoint / recruit interim replacements for any position, even mayor, election office, etc.)
• Governors may not be mayor of a city in a different province
• A leader can be a deputy governor and a governor can be a deputy leader, and either may exercize temporary authority, but cannot be permanently promoted from the deputy position to the primary position without resigning the other office.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
The Judicary, IIRC, cannot post instructions.

Yes, CG, that is how it has always been. I'm suggesting (here and there and everywhere) that we give that power to the judiciary in DG4. I'm not going to get into the specifics of when they could do so (that would be for the code of laws), I'm just trying to see if we can agree now the judiciary should have the power.

Regarding one of your earlier posts about deputies: You and Ravensfire (I thought) asked much the same quesiton about how many deputyships a person could hold (under my proposed wording). I answered the question by quoting Ravensfire. I did not mean to slight you by doing that.

 

[GenMarshall]

I don’t believe we should have the judiciary department to have the power to post in the turn instruction thread. For starters, the judiciary department does not deal anything with the game mechanics. Domestic, Military, Trade, Science, FA, and Governors do deal with things regarding the game mechanics. I don’t see a place for the judiciary to have the powers to post in the instruction thread. Since it would be silly to have the judiciary, mind you they don’t deal anything with the game mechanics, post in the instruction thread.
I personally don’t see the judicary posting instructions (Unless they are a deputy in a given office).

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I don’t believe we should have the judiciary department to have the power to post in the turn instruction thread. For starters, the judiciary department does not deal anything with the game mechanics. Domestic, Military, Trade, Science, FA, and Governors do deal with things regarding the game mechanics. I don’t see a place for the judiciary to have the powers to post in the instruction thread. Since it would be silly to have the judiciary, mind you they don’t deal anything with the game mechanics, post in the instruction thread.
I personally don’t see the judicary posting instructions (Unless they are a deputy in a given office).

The idea is that if a leader was doing something against the demonstrated *will of the people* then a citizen could go to the judiciary and say, "Hey! This leader isn't doing what he's supposed to be doing. See this here evidence? *citizen points to a poll*". The judiciary would then elavuate the case and if the leader is going against the *will of the people* then the judiciary can post the appropriate game play instruction which would over-ride any posted by the leader on that specific thing that the case was about. We would specify in the CoL exactly how this process would work.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig


The idea is that if a leader was doing something against the demonstrated *will of the people* then a citizen could go to the judiciary and say, "Hey! This leader isn't doing what he's supposed to be doing. See this here evidence? *citizen points to a poll*".

Oh, I get it -- this is an alternative to the PI process, in the area of instructions? I'd prefer this to having the DP decide an instruction is illegal for the same reason.

However, have we ever had a leader who actually did ignore polls?

Would this same concept apply to a citizen-initiated poll which is considered "informational" by the responsible leader? Has there been a case in the past where that happened?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.

OK, what do we need to figure out to get Article H ratified? It looks like all we need to do is determine what positions cannot be held simultaneously. As far as I can see, here are our options(from most to least flexible). Shall we restrict:

1. Leader positions in same branch(ok to hold leadership in more than one branch)
2. Leader positions period(each elected leader must be a different citizen).
3. Leaders/deputies(every government position held by a different citizen).

I am sure that there is a better way to word this, but you get the idea. For the sake of this proposal, the definition of leader is one who wins a position by election. As a matter of fact, I believe that should be the definition going forward.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Shall we restrict:

1. Leader positions in same branch(ok to hold leadership in more than one branch)
2. Leader positions period(each elected leader must be a different citizen).
3. Leaders/deputies(every government position held by a different citizen).

I am sure that there is a better way to word this, but you get the idea. For the sake of this proposal, the definition of leader is one who wins a position by election. As a matter of fact, I believe that should be the definition going forward.

Ideally it's 3; but is that realistically ? I've had a time in DG3, reffered to as "Rik's nominating frenzy", in which I've nominated nearly everyone for every office. I hoped this would result in more people actually running in the election, but again it turned out as a 2 or a 3 horse race. And with so few people running it's fantasy to have sufficient people to fill all leader and deputy positions.

As a result of my "nominating frenzy" I held simultaniously Mil-dep, Sci-dep, Dom-dep, VP, Governor and Mayor (and maybe more, I forgot) which gave me, in absence of the leaders in the T/C, the deciding and overpowered position. So to say: I ordered the Pres around in the T/C.

This was fun, however not desirable. I'd like 1 registered citizen to hold max 1 leader position or 1 deputy position.

I mean it like this:
"every government position held by a different citizen"
And we have a list which includes the deputies.
Pres - Domldr - Milldr - Cultldr - ... - Governor - VicePres - DepDom - ... - Dep Foreign. (or any order desired). This way you create a list or a 'set' of positions which 1 person can only held 1 at max.

 

[Peri]

It should be option 3 but it would not work. There are not enough players actively involved to make it successful. I want elections to be hotly contested with interesting debates.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


I am sure that there is a better way to word this, but you get the idea. For the sake of this proposal, the definition of leader is one who wins a position by election. As a matter of fact, I believe that should be the definition going forward.

Hmmm... wording.... do you see the benifit of grounding things according to who can post game play instructions?

@DaveShack: Yes, the suggestion (of giving game play instruciton posting authority to the judiciary) is meant to be an alternative to a PI. We could still have the PI process but by letting the judicary post game play instructions (under certain to be defined proceedures) we may be able to avoid some PIs.

@Peri: We should continue to work towards the #3 option (of restricting people to having and running for only one office). It is only by spreading the responsibilities around that we could ever hope to attract and hold more players.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Perhaps we can leave this wording as-is, and better clarify it in the CoL. I think no two leader positions(see definition above) should be held by the same citizen, and that is covered here. In the CoL, we should base our deputy decision on demand for the positions, so that the law may easily change as our needs change.

Once again, I don't think we need to mention deputies in the Constitution. Let's keep this article as-is, save for rewording it if necessary.