A couple of questions came up in the discussion on the constitution section for the judiciary, about where will we find the specific procedures for PI's/CC's, JR's, time schedules, etc. This thread is the anchor point for how we want to handle those areas.
In DG3 we started out with these areas left undefined, with the understanding that the CJ of each term would set procedures as needed, typically following an unwritten set of rules garnered from the previous demogames. More than one citizen complained about the rules being unwritten, and we started on a Code of Laws partway through the game.
In DG4 we took the approach that detailed rules were necessary to simplify the legal battles by having a written rule for everything. This was meant to avoid the problem of people disagreeing with the unwritten rules and thus holding everything up, or just ignoring precedent which would leave the people with no recourse. The basic idea we used for DG4 rules was to take the Code of Laws and Code of Standards from DG2 as a framework, and write specific lower details of rules based on the DG4 Constitution. DG4 was a disaster from a rules standpoint because the details of Constitution, CoL, and CoS did not always agree, leaving dozens of reviews in the area of what the rules meant.
Most people have said they want to play with the fewest, clear, and easy to understand rules as possible. We had a thread and poll which indicated that there is broad-based support for making the rules "permissive", which means any reasonable procedure which gets us to the fundamental goals of the democracy game is OK, as long as it doesn't break an explicit rule.
So, discussion please! How far do we want permissiveness in the rules to go, and for those things which are detailed procedures to follow, time limits, etc., where do we want the detailed rules to go?
In DG3 we started out with these areas left undefined, with the understanding that the CJ of each term would set procedures as needed, typically following an unwritten set of rules garnered from the previous demogames. More than one citizen complained about the rules being unwritten, and we started on a Code of Laws partway through the game.
In DG4 we took the approach that detailed rules were necessary to simplify the legal battles by having a written rule for everything. This was meant to avoid the problem of people disagreeing with the unwritten rules and thus holding everything up, or just ignoring precedent which would leave the people with no recourse. The basic idea we used for DG4 rules was to take the Code of Laws and Code of Standards from DG2 as a framework, and write specific lower details of rules based on the DG4 Constitution. DG4 was a disaster from a rules standpoint because the details of Constitution, CoL, and CoS did not always agree, leaving dozens of reviews in the area of what the rules meant.
Most people have said they want to play with the fewest, clear, and easy to understand rules as possible. We had a thread and poll which indicated that there is broad-based support for making the rules "permissive", which means any reasonable procedure which gets us to the fundamental goals of the democracy game is OK, as long as it doesn't break an explicit rule.
So, discussion please! How far do we want permissiveness in the rules to go, and for those things which are detailed procedures to follow, time limits, etc., where do we want the detailed rules to go?
