donsig
Low level intermediary
Hehe, I'm confusing my constitutions and actually proposed a version of article C that is no different from the one already in place! 
DG4 Discussion - Const: Preamble Thru C
- Thread starter DaveShack
- Start date
Donovan Zoi
The Return
I am fine with us not naming the CoS in our Constitution until we are sure it will be there. At this time, however, I would rather work on defining legal concepts than wording the minutae of our Constitution, seeing that the former will take the most work. I know that the Constitution should be drafted first but I am not going to wait to address other issues, some of which may change how we word our Constitution. As a matter of fact, I have no problem with you or Cyc or DaveShack running any threads dealing with the Constitution at this time.
As far as my plans for the Three Books:
3 levels of laws = 3 levels of punishment = 3 paths to change
Of course, the Constitution would be the toughest to change and the CoS the easiest. Also, an affront to our Constitution would carry a much stiffer penalty than a CoS misstep(most likely only a warning, if anything, for these offenses). Our CoL would contain all of the pertinent laws regarding these matters.
As far as subjecting leaders to a bit of protocol backed by the CoS, I don't think there is anything wrong with listing suggested procedure.
As far as my plans for the Three Books:
3 levels of laws = 3 levels of punishment = 3 paths to change
Of course, the Constitution would be the toughest to change and the CoS the easiest. Also, an affront to our Constitution would carry a much stiffer penalty than a CoS misstep(most likely only a warning, if anything, for these offenses). Our CoL would contain all of the pertinent laws regarding these matters.
As far as subjecting leaders to a bit of protocol backed by the CoS, I don't think there is anything wrong with listing suggested procedure.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Quoting DZ:
As far as subjecting leaders to a bit of protocol backed by the CoS, I don't think there is anything wrong with listing suggested procedure.
I agree with this statement. I also think donsig's comment about the "1st post" (obviuosly of the TCI thread) was way off base. If we went to the trouble of writing a Standard for the TCI, we wouldn't limit it by just putting those two lines in. It would also say something like "the TCI will have a minimum of these items in the first post...."
As far as subjecting leaders to a bit of protocol backed by the CoS, I don't think there is anything wrong with listing suggested procedure.
I agree with this statement. I also think donsig's comment about the "1st post" (obviuosly of the TCI thread) was way off base. If we went to the trouble of writing a Standard for the TCI, we wouldn't limit it by just putting those two lines in. It would also say something like "the TCI will have a minimum of these items in the first post...."
donsig
Low level intermediary
Well, Cyc, I quoted straight from the old CoS. That's all it says regarding the first post of the TCI. My point is that if we make a list of procedures that is not part of the constitution nor Code of Laws - and therefore not subject to PIs then we don't have to wait to start DG4 until we write all this stuff. Going line by line down the CoL and Cos will take a long time. Subjecting leaders to protocol is fine so long as it does not stifle innovations that may well make the game better. Do we really want to be so *restrictive* that we cannot easily try new ideas?
donsig
Low level intermediary
If we decide it going to be there why do we have to name it in the constitution? Leave reference to it out, don't demand it or forbid it, write the constitution and go on to the Code of Laws. You can't do this in circles: start the constitution, then start the CoL- which is supposed to define the constitution - then change the con to match the CoL, etc. You have to have the con first. i agree that it would be nice to have all the general principles down before that, but when we can't, let's generalize the con and move on. This way we don't have to come back and change the con no matter which way we go on the general principles to be decided.
So, is there concensus that my proposal (which does include the points raised earlier) is acceptable? Can we finalize this part of the con?
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
donsig,
Love your proposal! Exactly the way it should be written - defines the boundaries in non-specific terms. It allows us to create any structure we want, so long as the Constitution remains the primary source of law.
Note to self - you actually agreed with donsig in a legal discussion. Call pshrink for appointment.
-- Ravensfire
Love your proposal! Exactly the way it should be written - defines the boundaries in non-specific terms. It allows us to create any structure we want, so long as the Constitution remains the primary source of law.
Note to self - you actually agreed with donsig in a legal discussion. Call pshrink for appointment.
-- Ravensfire
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I agree that the Constitution needs to be fully defined first.
My thoughts are that while yes, the Code of Laws (or whatever name we use) does indeed explain the clauses of the constitution, they themselves are completely driven by that superior document.
Finally, I don't think we should specifically say there will be a CoL and CoS in the constitution. We may still have that, but I think it would be wrong to lock that in. We should say that there will be a CoL, and if we decide later to further use CoS, then the CoL can define what the CoS rules are.
My thoughts are that while yes, the Code of Laws (or whatever name we use) does indeed explain the clauses of the constitution, they themselves are completely driven by that superior document.
Finally, I don't think we should specifically say there will be a CoL and CoS in the constitution. We may still have that, but I think it would be wrong to lock that in. We should say that there will be a CoL, and if we decide later to further use CoS, then the CoL can define what the CoS rules are.
Donsig's proposal works OK for me. I have no preference for preamble wording, and in general each body of law should state it can be further defined by a lower body of law which does not contradict itself, so article B also is acceptable. This does not prevent a 3rd level of law, it would just need to be specified in the 2nd level. In concrete terms, the Constitution should allow for the CoL but doesn't necessarily have to name it, and the CoL may allow for a CoS but the Constitution does not need to name a 3rd level.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Suggested poll:
Should we ratify the following constitutional preamble and articles?
We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.
Article A: All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to seek to redress grievances and the right to vote.
Article B: Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so.
Article C: The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.
Poll choices:
Yes
No
Abstain
Poll will be open for (insert time here).
(Link to discussion thread here.)
Should we ratify the following constitutional preamble and articles?
We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.
Article A: All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to seek to redress grievances and the right to vote.
Article B: Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so.
Article C: The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.
Poll choices:
Yes
No
Abstain
Poll will be open for (insert time here).
(Link to discussion thread here.)
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
donsig,
Suggested poll looks good to me - no surprise there. I would suggest a time frame of 4 days for the poll, to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote.
-- Ravensfire
Suggested poll looks good to me - no surprise there. I would suggest a time frame of 4 days for the poll, to make sure everyone has the opportunity to vote.
-- Ravensfire
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
There's no qualms here. It's nice and flexible, and that'll allow for smaller changes as we need them.
I would like to point out that a vote on donsig's proposed poll (or anything similar) should define these articles for the proposed DG4 constitution, but does not actually "ratify" them. The entire constitution should be presented for another ratification vote sometime in December.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I disagree DaveShack. Let's ratify these articles now. Donovan Zoi has those sticky threads to track progress and everything is still red. Unless we actually lock something down and firm it up (by ratifying or whatever term you want to use) we will never see any progress.
You are welcome to submit your own proposed poll here so we can get this moving along...
You are welcome to submit your own proposed poll here so we can get this moving along...
I have some concerns with locking the constitution in piecemeal like this.
- People who know the game will be starting Jan '04 may not even show up until December, and I don't want them to be devoiced.
- There is a chance (slight but nonzero) that articles worked on later in the process may be inconsistent with ones worked on early in the process.
- Without a final ratification vote, we don't know when the amendment process takes effect.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I would agree with DaveShack here, in that a citizen vote on the proposed Articles at this time would place the Article on the proposed Constitution to be ratified as a whole. Finalizing any potion of the document at this time may prove to be an embarassing mistake. If we get into December and realize some of the concrete Articles in this doc need to be changed, it will be much better if they had just been placed on the "proposed" slate.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Well, that makes a whole lot of sense. Let's hold off on making any decisions till later because any decision we make now might change because of decisions we will make later.
BTW, if you run for any position on the judiciary zorven, you've got my vote. You're the only one who has the guts to stand by decisions that are already made. I still think starting with the old DG2 rules was foolhardy but that's what was decided and as you so rightfully pointed out they are the current law of the land.
BTW, if you run for any position on the judiciary zorven, you've got my vote. You're the only one who has the guts to stand by decisions that are already made. I still think starting with the old DG2 rules was foolhardy but that's what was decided and as you so rightfully pointed out they are the current law of the land.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
This is going to be a continuing problem, and one that I don't think we need to have.
I would propose that the following method be adopted.
1. Once each section of law is finalized, a summary of all changes to that section, and any other section is created. This summary is posted for 24 hours in the discussion thread.
2. A poll is then created, titled "Approval for section name", or some variant thereof. The usual stuff should be here, including a note that this poll is to approve this section, and and changes to previous sections as needed. This section may be altered by later sections of law. Once the Constitutional process is complete, a final version will be presented for Ratification by the People.
3. Poll runs for at least 72 hours (3 days)
Let's be up front with everyone, and say that this is what we have now, but future ideas MAY result in changes. This allows us to keep everyone involved by approving each section as we go, but not lock the verbage down until the end.
Comments?
-- Ravensfire
I would propose that the following method be adopted.
1. Once each section of law is finalized, a summary of all changes to that section, and any other section is created. This summary is posted for 24 hours in the discussion thread.
2. A poll is then created, titled "Approval for section name", or some variant thereof. The usual stuff should be here, including a note that this poll is to approve this section, and and changes to previous sections as needed. This section may be altered by later sections of law. Once the Constitutional process is complete, a final version will be presented for Ratification by the People.
3. Poll runs for at least 72 hours (3 days)
Let's be up front with everyone, and say that this is what we have now, but future ideas MAY result in changes. This allows us to keep everyone involved by approving each section as we go, but not lock the verbage down until the end.
Comments?
-- Ravensfire
donsig
Low level intermediary
Sorry, ravensfire, but I still disagree. What is the point of discussing things a section at a time if we're not going to make any decisions? For crying out loud even if we manage to agree on proposals for the constitution as a whole we still have issues to address that we're putting off till the CoL talks. Are you all sugesting that we not make any final decisions until we have all the rules written?
Has anyone else realized that most demogame players don't even like writing rules? There has not been a whole lot of people contributing here. Of course if there were many demogamers who did like making rules we wouldn't be doing this now because most serious issues would have been addressed in term three of DG3. Citizens as a whole would rather fight than write.
Has anyone else realized that most demogame players don't even like writing rules? There has not been a whole lot of people contributing here. Of course if there were many demogamers who did like making rules we wouldn't be doing this now because most serious issues would have been addressed in term three of DG3. Citizens as a whole would rather fight than write.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
donsig, I think you missed the point of what I was suggested. I want to get each section approved as we go, not as a whole at the end.
Once each section is done, poll it. Get everyone's approval of it. Call the section done. Don't lock it stone so tight that a good idea later on can't make a small change. But, MAKE THE DECISION - does THIS section look good?
Once everything is done, put the entire thing up for a "ratification" poll. It's pretty much a formality at that point, but we would then have a body of law that everyone has participated in, and approved in it's final form.
On your second comment - yes, I have noticed, continue to notice and don't really care. I avoid some discussions, other avoid this stuff. To each his own.
-- Ravensfire
