DG4 Discussion - Const: Preamble Thru C

[donsig]

Sorry, ravensfire, but I did understand your post and I still disagree with it. This does raise a nice little technical / legal question. What exactly are the rules we're following for making the rules? Is zorven's interpretation the valid one? If so, then any changes we make must be made within the rules already adopted. If not, then what criteria are we using to make and/or change laws?

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
Sorry, ravensfire, but I did understand your post and I still disagree with it. This does raise a nice little technical / legal question. What exactly are the rules we're following for making the rules? Is zorven's interpretation the valid one? If so, then any changes we make must be made within the rules already adopted. If not, then what criteria are we using to make and/or change laws?

Fair enough!

Good question.

[Soapbox]
We should continue as we currently are - starting at the top and working down. The three books are well-designed, generally starting with broad, general statements and getting more defined as you continue. We can go nuts trying to catch every detail affected farther down as we change rules.

In addition, our general guideline is that the DG4 laws are based on DG2 laws, with changes as deemed needed. We aren't working within the DG2 laws, we are working on them. Semantics, kindof. Call it a view point - we are not yet governed by the DG2 ruleset, we are using it as a starting point for DG4.

We should start with only the assumption that each section must be changed to remain consistent with previously accepted sections. We use the existing verbage as the starting point.

This requires us to remain consistent only with the sections we have discussed, not with future sections. Anything else would cause monstrous issues I'd prefer not to think about.
[/Soapbox]

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire

We should start with only the assumption that each section must be changed to remain consistent with previously accepted sections. We use the existing verbage as the starting point.

Would you mind explaing what you mean by previously accepted sections? Do you mean we can lock 'em down and move on or are you still advocating some sort of nebulous acceptance subject to revision later down the line?

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


Would you mind explaing what you mean by previously accepted sections? Do you mean we can lock 'em down and move on or are you still advocating some sort of nebulous acceptance subject to revision later down the line?

Previously accepted section:
Any section, of any body of law presented to the the citizens of Demogame 4 to accept or reject.


Sigh.

I'll say it again. There is NO WAY to absolutely lock down a section without placing future concepts under harsh conditions.

None. And that's not a good thing.

I think you feel I'm advocating that we can change any section we've already gone through on a whim. I'm not - far from it. I'm advocating that we allow ourselves some degree, and not much, of flexibility in the future to account for a good idea.

I don't what to continually rewrite sections that have been completed. I don't want people proposing ideas that significantly alter previous sections. I do want some small amount of flexibility so that we can make some tweaks if we need to.

I know, I know. What's a small tweak, how can you tell, blah, blah, blah. I'll fall back on the obscenity definition Justice Stweart used - "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . ut I know it when I see it . . ." In this, as in many other matters, it is the active participants in this discussion who need to recognize when someone is attempting to materially alter a previous section, and when they are just trying to tweak the section.

It's a fine line, yes, I'm quite aware. I believe that any other method would cause more problems than it would solve.

That is, however, my opinion. I would ask you, and others, what is you answer to this vexing problem?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

donsig, let it go. Ravensfire is right, and you are just causing too many side issues and problems in dealing with this process to move forward. You would rather walk around in circles arguing over minute details than allowing the rest of the forum to achieve any goals. You have done this from the begining, STOP. Let the work that needs to get done get done. Quit bringing up cross reference type issues that are basically meaningless just so you can argue and tie up the process so nothing gets done. Sheesh!

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
donsig, let it go. Ravensfire is right, and you are just causing too many side issues and problems in dealing with this process to move forward. You would rather walk around in circles arguing over minute details than allowing the rest of the forum to achieve any goals. You have done this from the begining, STOP. Let the work that needs to get done get done. Quit bringing up cross reference type issues that are basically meaningless just so you can argue and tie up the process so nothing gets done. Sheesh!

It's not me you need to tell to stop. I am trying to move ahead. It is you all who want to pussy foot around and not do anything. It makes no sense what-so-ever to dilly-dally and not make any decisions. You don't want to lock things down and commit to anything but at the same time you don't want to discuss any of the so-called side issues that might lead us to actually make a decision.

Is it too much to ask exactly what proceedures we're to follow for this process?

 

[Cyc]

The procedures, donsig have been laid out plainly infront of us all for some time now. DZ has stated what needs to be done and others have basically agreed on the process. We are changing the DG2 Con to fit our needs in DG4. We are doing it line by line of step by step of documents (Con and supporting books) we can approve the "re-writings" as we change them, and then ratify the Con and the other docs separately when we get ALL done. It's quite simple, you've done this before.

 

[Bootstoots]

I must say, these extended debates over the first four articles of the constitution have caused me to succumb to some degree of apathy over this process. We have an entire ruleset to consider in the next month, let's poll this and move on.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
The procedures, donsig have been laid out plainly infront of us all for some time now. DZ has stated what needs to be done and others have basically agreed on the process. We are changing the DG2 Con to fit our needs in DG4. We are doing it line by line of step by step of documents (Con and supporting books) we can approve the "re-writings" as we change them, and then ratify the Con and the other docs separately when we get ALL done. It's quite simple, you've done this before.

So what's the problem? I've suggested a poll to approve the re-writings we've discussed for these articles. I guess I have to ask you the same question I asked ravensfire: what exactly do you mean when you say we can approve the "re-writings"? Can we nail them down or just give them a nebulous approval? I'll go further - if we're not nailing them down now but leaving everything opened ended until some future ratification of the whole, just how can we make any progress now? By refusing to make any decisions now we only postpone the arguments till later. Let's hash it out now and finalize something.

 

[Cyc]

Boots, now you've realized the true reason of donsigism. To get everyone going around in circles or just plain quitting until there is very little time left. That of course is when donsig comes in and writes the rules. Our time to focus was a month ago, but because of all these meaningless arguements and side issues, we're now running out of time. Each day I just shake my head when I see the progress we haven't made. We'll probably think of 6 other important things to talk about before we get around to finalizing the Preamble and the first 3 Articles.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by donsig


So what's the problem? I've suggested a poll to approve the re-writings we've discussed for these articles. I guess I have to ask you the same question I asked ravensfire: what exactly do you mean when you say we can approve the "re-writings"? Can we nail them down or just give them a nebulous approval? I'll go further - if we're not nailing them down now but leaving everything opened ended until some future ratification of the whole, just how can we make any progress now? By refusing to make any decisions now we only postpone the arguments till later. Let's hash it out now and finalize something.

donsig, Ravensfire really did lay that out for you in an easy to understand format. Just go back and reread what he said until you do understand it. I believe you're still missing the point.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
Boots, now you've realized the true reason of donsigism. To get everyone going around in circles or just plain quitting until there is very little time left. That of course is when donsig comes in and writes the rules. Our time to focus was a month ago, but because of all these meaningless arguements and side issues, we're now running out of time. Each day I just shake my head when I see the progress we haven't made. We'll probably think of 6 other important things to talk about before we get around to finalizing the Preamble and the first 3 Articles.

I guess I am missing the point Cyc old friend. I suggested a poll to finalize the preamble and first three articles. No one has suggested anything new to talk about - important or otherwise - yet we do not move to finalize this section of the constitution. Do you agree that we should finalize these sections and move on? If so do you think the poll I suggested is ok or do you have an alternate poll you'd like to propose?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire


Previously accepted section:
Any section, of any body of law presented to the the citizens of Demogame 4 to accept or reject.


Sigh.

I'll say it again. There is NO WAY to absolutely lock down a section without placing future concepts under harsh conditions.

None. And that's not a good thing.

I think you feel I'm advocating that we can change any section we've already gone through on a whim. I'm not - far from it. I'm advocating that we allow ourselves some degree, and not much, of flexibility in the future to account for a good idea.

-- Ravensfire

The time to worry about future concepts has long past. We tried that in DG3, remember? You all decided you wanted a restrictive ruleset. So start writing. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a restrictive ruleset and still leave flexibility for good ideas that crop up.

Perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement and move things along if you could explicitly define the degree of flexibility you want.

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

I'll repeat my question that you carefully avoided: what answer do you propose to the problem you raised?

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


The time to worry about future concepts has long past. We tried that in DG3, remember? You all decided you wanted a restrictive ruleset. So start writing. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a restrictive ruleset and still leave flexibility for good ideas that crop up.

Perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement and move things along if you could explicitly define the degree of flexibility you want.

Talk about mixing concepts here ...

Okay, I'll try to explain this clearly, again. I have no idea where you got this restrictive ruleset stuff from.

My proposal deals ONLY with the process we are currently going through. BTW - that would be the "Create the Constitution" process, just to make sure there are no misunderstandings. As a People, we have decided to import the DG2 ruleset over, then review each section to see if we want any changes.

Still following me? Good. As part of this process, we may, MAY, in the course of reviewing a section, determine that we need a small tweak in a section we have already discussed. Rather than lock down a section totally, I'm suggesting we approve each section, but allow for future discussion to make minor tweaks in those sections. I don't want to allow wholesale replacement of sections that we've already discussed. To keep a process moving, you need to limit the ability to revisit old decisions, but without completely blocking the ability to tweak them.

This is nothing about restrictive vs permissive. That may be your pet peeve, too bad. The DG3 ruleset is not happening for this game - deal with it.

Further, your comment about "You cannot have a restrictive ruleset and still leave flexibility for good ideas that crop up" is pure garbage as you well know. Last time I checked, there is nothing in our current ruleset (based on DG2) that prohibts someone from proposing a good idea, and Shock! Amazement! it might actually get passed!

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig

Perhaps we could come to some sort of agreement and move things along if you could explicitly define the degree of flexibility you want.

Done - look at post #44.

Here's the summary:
(note - this is for each section in document)

1. Determine the section to review
2. Determine if section is to be changed. If no, go to
3. Determine new wording of section
4. Review previous sections for contradictions
5. Post poll asking for People to approve current section

Once all sections have been reviewed, post Approval poll for document

Once all documents have been reviewed, post Ratification poll for ruleset.

That's my outline - the key part is that we are allowed to make minor changes to previous sections, but only minor changes.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire
donsig,

I'll repeat my question that you carefully avoided: what answer do you propose to the problem you raised?

-- Ravensfire

What problem have I raised? I proposed a poll to nail down an agreemant on the preamble and articles A, B and C. I am working with in the system you all set up. Donovan Zoi posted sticky threads (progress thread ) to track our progress, stating (and I quote)

The idea here is to either confirm or replace all text in red. New laws or standards confirmed by either unanimous discussion or conclusive poll will be adopted, after which progress will be tracked by changing the passage to black text.

Does this not imply that we would attack this piecemeal? Does this not imply that we would finalize the documents a little at a time? What am I missing here guys?

DaveShack is the one who raised the problem. He is the one who said I have some concerns with locking the constitution in piecemeal like this. Ask him how to solve the problem, not me.

All I can do is repeat my proposed poll for that is the solution I see to moving forward with this mess!

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).

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


I guess I am missing the point Cyc old friend. I suggested a poll to finalize the preamble and first three articles. No one has suggested anything new to talk about - important or otherwise - yet we do not move to finalize this section of the constitution. Do you agree that we should finalize these sections and move on? If so do you think the poll I suggested is ok or do you have an alternate poll you'd like to propose?

(Note - sorry for the spamming)

donsig,

Despite all of this, I like your proposal, like the poll proposal, and strongly suggest you post it.

All of this discussion appears to be about one concern - can future discussion alter sections that have been approved, if so how much.

Ignoring that, I do hope you poll this one so we can move on. This gives us a great start.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


What problem have I raised?

donsig,

As I said, I have no problems with the poll and proposal - quite like 'em. The problem(s) I'm referring to is from post #41 and #43.

These:

Would you mind explaing what you mean by previously accepted sections? Do you mean we can lock 'em down and move on or are you still advocating some sort of nebulous acceptance subject to revision later down the line?

and

This does raise a nice little technical / legal question. What exactly are the rules we're following for making the rules? Is zorven's interpretation the valid one? If so, then any changes we make must be made within the rules already adopted. If not, then what criteria are we using to make and/or change laws?

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire


Done - look at post #44.

-- Ravensfire

Please look up the word explicitly. You might find that the old *I can't define it but I know it when I see it* is not explicit. Without an explicit definition of what changes can be made - and how they can be made - we run the risk of ending up fighting over proposed changes. What I see as a minor change may not seem so minor to you or someone else.

What is it you all want in order for us to have some agreement here?