DG5 Constitution: General Discussion

[ravensfire]

Well....who's in the election office, then? I figure the judicial is about as impartial as you can get, so why not let them do it? Though I'm fine with changing the number and term limit.

Notice that this gets ignored?

The Election Office is de facto run by CG and Boots. There are no rules. There are no checks.

There have been, and probably will continue to be problems with communication, timeliness, dismissing valid feedback/criticism and ignoring rules.

This is usually from only one person.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Add to the Culture Minister to serve an advisory role in all things cultural, and I like it.

What I want to do is, by moving certain things out of the MIA, to encourage the MIA to be more aggressive on Cultural issues. During my term as MIA, I always had a summary of culture, and kept after governors to increase culture where needed.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I am also against any proposals that would allow anyone other than the DP to make binding decisions during a game play session.

Finally, can we have a nice small, generally worded constitution that is easy to understand?

 

[GenMarshall]

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I am also against any proposals that would allow anyone other than the DP to make binding decisions during a game play session.

Finally, can we have a nice small, generally worded constitution that is easy to understand?

I would have to disagree with you on that point. I beleve that deputies should be the runner up in the elections. IMO, deputies are the esential part of the demogame since they are the assistants to aspiering leaders. I personaly like the "deputy runner up from the elections" because I can work with the leader and better refine my skills so that I can be elected leader in the next elections (This is also true with many of the vet players here)

 

[Sarevok]

I would have to disagree with you on that point. I beleve that deputies should be the runner up in the elections. IMO, deputies are the esential part of the demogame since they are the assistants to aspiering leaders. I personaly like the "deputy runner up from the elections" because I can work with the leader and better refine my skills so that I can be elected leader in the next elections (This is also true with many of the vet players here)

sadly, the deputy position does not educate you in the slightest. The only thing that you learn is that its a wasted position and that you need to get your name out to win the next election rather than work as someone who will never get noticed. I was dep for a time in Term 1, and I didnt learn a damn thing. Only by getting my strategic and tactical abilities known was I able to be Min. of Def. for Terms 2&3.

 

[Sarevok]

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I am also against any proposals that would allow anyone other than the DP to make binding decisions during a game play session.

Finally, can we have a nice small, generally worded constitution that is easy to understand?

Im curious to see you write up a constitution, Donsig. I think you made 50+ Judicial reviews saying there was something wrong with the constitution. Perhaps you shoul write a constitution up so that "everything can be set right." What do you think?

 

[donsig]

Im curious to see you write up a constitution, Donsig. I think you made 50+ Judicial reviews saying there was something wrong with the constitution. Perhaps you shoul write a constitution up so that "everything can be set right." What do you think?

The demogame constitution was rewritten back in DG1 and refined along the way both during and between the subsequent demogames. I have been a part of that process since DG1. There is no need for me to write a new constitution, all we have to do is use the latest version sans the Code of Laws and Code of Standards.

The one change I would make would be the elimination of Article K.

By the way, I do recall making many, many posts pointing out the flaws in the CoL and CoS but don't think I've posted that the constitution itself is flawed. I am quite proud of the evolution of our constitution to this point and have spent alot of time trying to uphold it.

 

[Immortal]

I agree with Donsig in spirit, and Chieftess as well, less not more is best. We should return to the roots in demogame 1's rules, and elimiate all unnecessary pieces, generalized rules rather than the specifics and legal nightmare of the CoS and CoL

 

[Sarevok]

The demogame constitution was rewritten back in DG1 and refined along the way both during and between the subsequent demogames. I have been a part of that process since DG1. There is no need for me to write a new constitution, all we have to do is use the latest version sans the Code of Laws and Code of Standards.

The one change I would make would be the elimination of Article K.

By the way, I do recall making many, many posts pointing out the flaws in the CoL and CoS but don't think I've posted that the constitution itself is flawed. I am quite proud of the evolution of our constitution to this point and have spent alot of time trying to uphold it.

Good enough for me, I see your point on this. My axe will stay in my belt and Ill just watch and see where this leads.

 

[GenMarshall]

sadly, the deputy position does not educate you in the slightest. The only thing that you learn is that its a wasted position and that you need to get your name out to win the next election rather than work as someone who will never get noticed. I was dep for a time in Term 1, and I didnt learn a damn thing. Only by getting my strategic and tactical abilities known was I able to be Min. of Def. for Terms 2&3.

Well, that came from different experiances. I guess things were different back in Demogame 1-2.

 

[Sarevok]

Well, that came from different experiances. I guess things were different back in Demogame 1-2.

apparently they did. My strategic abilities came off of my own experiences. The only way one can get experience at the office is to have a mandatory TC that the Deputys posted the instructions instead of the ministers. But this event would likely be a disaster as well. Why the hell do we have deputies if they dont know what to do?

 

[Bootstoots]

Notice that this gets ignored?

The Election Office is de facto run by CG and Boots. There are no rules. There are no checks.

There have been, and probably will continue to be problems with communication, timeliness, dismissing valid feedback/criticism and ignoring rules.

This is usually from only one person.

-- Ravensfire

How do you suggest we be checked? How should elections be run? I personally wouldn't be opposed to the dissolution of the Election Office if a better system of managing the elections is determined.

Regarding deputies, excepting a few cases, they're rather useless anyway. Our current system of appointment by the leader with a possibility for a refusal poll (only happened once I believe) is fine by me.

As for the ruleset as a whole, I think we should reduce its size somewhat, but not too far. The barely existant ruleset of DG3 caused problems with its lack of rules as well. We should steer for a middle ground here, perhaps a two-tiered ruleset with some of DG4's rules incorporated, and we can take from the other rulesets as well where we find rules that work better. I do not think that we should start with only a threadbare constitution; by the time we pass a constitution like that I would hope that a CoL is being worked on to add to it.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I've got a wacky idea. How about discontinuing deputies altogether? If we have an AWOL leader, we can have the VP step in to give instructions.

The VP position has always been lamented as ceremonial as best, so let's give the role some teeth. We could also include that the DP has free reign over any area where instructions are not given.

With this setup in mind, we would need to provide strict penalties for not posting instructions. First time: warning in departmental thread. Second Time: Vote of No Confidence Third Time(if VoNC fails): Immediate Impeachment.


Just some ideas I had. I am not sure if any of them are workable.

 

[ravensfire]

How do you suggest we be checked? How should elections be run? I personally wouldn't be opposed to the dissolution of the Election Office if a better system of managing the elections is determined.

Regarding deputies, excepting a few cases, they're rather useless anyway. Our current system of appointment by the leader with a possibility for a refusal poll (only happened once I believe) is fine by me.

As for the ruleset as a whole, I think we should reduce its size somewhat, but not too far. The barely existant ruleset of DG3 caused problems with its lack of rules as well. We should steer for a middle ground here, perhaps a two-tiered ruleset with some of DG4's rules incorporated, and we can take from the other rulesets as well where we find rules that work better. I do not think that we should start with only a threadbare constitution; by the time we pass a constitution like that I would hope that a CoL is being worked on to add to it.

Boots, RE the Election Office - it is an office with zero controls on it. It's actions during the first part of DG4 were less than satisfactory.

Proposal One: Eliminate the EO. All threads created by the CJ.

Proposal Two: Keep the EO seperate from the game (current system). A charter is created, detailing membership and responsibilities. A means of determining "leadership" is determined. This charter is approved by vote of Citizens

Proposal Three: Make the EO a citizen's office under guidance from Judiciary. By a majority vote, the Judiciary can remove any citizen from the EO for cause.

How many terms did we have nomination tracker threads? Very few. The EO has turned into an extremely passive office when it used to be more active.

As it currently stands, the EO is a stand-alone office, seperate from everything else with minimal controls and no responsibility to the citizens.

Personally, I choose option 3.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

We could also include that the DP has free reign over any area where instructions are not given.

The DP has always had authority to make decisions when no instructions are posted and that is the way it should be. ( Hmmm, isn't that how the Great Aztec War started in DG3? )

 

[Epimethius]

I say we keep the deputies and dissolve the EO in favor of the judicial. I'm also fine with proposal three.

 

[ravensfire]

On Deputies,

I ask everyone to consider what practical value they add to the game. I stress practical, because the dream and desire is often different from reality.

The proposal to simply remove deputies is an intriging one to me. From what I can see, deputies offer one practical value, should the office be declared vacant, the deputy can take over.

That's it. The only benefit. Posting instructions when gone? Not reliably - that was shown in DG2/3/4. Posting instructions when none are posted - get real. Never happened. Education - oh my, that's a good laugh!

If, as I believe, deputies offer only the advantage to assume a vacant office, can that be done in another way? Would having the President appoint a willing citizen be sufficient?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Rik Meleet]

Raven:

Back in DG 3 I was simultaneously Deputy Domestic, Deputy Military, Deputy trade, Deputy FA (I can't remember exactly), Governor and Mayor. Back in those days advice could be given in the Turnchat and with the absence of the leaders I was deputy to, I was really busy in the TC's assisting our president (Bootstoots). The deputy position did have added value.

In DG 4 it was not allowed to instruct in the TC or edit instructions, thus the role of the deputy shriveled to a ceremonial suitcase-bearer for the office-holder.

There is talk of re-allowing, in certain circumstances, instuctions in the TC. Let's finish that discussion before we continue the "are deputies have any practical use?" topic.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I've got a wacky idea. How about discontinuing deputies altogether? If we have an AWOL leader, we can have the VP step in to give instructions.

I like that idea.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I feel that if we need an "election office" then that oversight should actually be provided by the Mods, so that we can avoid having legal tussles over the question of the judiciary being able to rule on the validity of their own election.