DGVI Constitution: General Discussion

[Provolution]

In fact, this stupid blindfolded Will of the People cult may kill off interest in "leadership", de facto poll-discussion slavery, so that in the end, there will be 3-4 citizens hammering 20 leaders for their wrongdoings and feeling high and mighty. In fact, the you would have a shadow cabinet of a handful rhetorical and quarrelsome citizens spreading discontent about the leaders. This is not a tenable situation. I am gone from the DG, but it has great potential when you allow leaders to actually lead, and not be targets for flames and posts full of vinegar, such behavior is contageous.
In the end, everyone gets embittered.

 

[classical_hero]

In fact, this stupid blindfolded Will of the People cult may kill off interest in "leadership", de facto poll-discussion slavery, so that in the end, there will be 3-4 citizens hammering 20 leaders for their wrongdoings and feeling high and mighty. In fact, the you would have a shadow cabinet of a handful rhetorical and quarrelsome citizens spreading discontent about the leaders. This is not a tenable situation. I am gone from the DG, but it has great potential when you allow leaders to actually lead, and not be targets for flames and posts full of vinegar, such behavior is contageous.
In the end, everyone gets embittered.

I have started a thread about democracy vs republic where this discussion can go on, rather than threadjacking this thread. [thread]109986[/thread]
I remember starting a discussion on what the WOTP actually means and surprise, surprise, noone actually knew the answer. This is one of the most fundamental questions that needs to be asked before we can actually get on with the other discussions. If we do not know what the Will Of The People is then, why are we going start another game that will start off on a bad foot. Get the basics sorted out first and then we can get onto some "more" complex issues.

 

[ravensfire]

Speaking of which, we should make it a rule that all instructions must be backed by instructions and polls. Not just an "on a whim instruction". That means governors too, must hold discussions on what to build.

Surprise - it's already there.

See that little section defining the Will of the People? It covers all leaders. All of them, including Governors.

To be blunt, if you didn't like a leader's instructions, and didn't bother to call them on it, it's your fault. You did nothing. You didn't care enough. Several times comments were made to Governors about build queues, and even (SHOCK!) requests from leaders, and those changes and requests were often carried out.

-- Ravensfire

 

[TimBentley]

Except for the fact that every day before the turnchat, I would have instructions up, as well as a screenshot and city info in Hairando's thread. I said comments were appreciated, but rarely did I ever get any. Governors seem to be underrated...

Perhaps you can put out instructions, but if no one posts in them, are they still valid?

I had a similar experience in my tenure as governor.

And I agree with ravensfire as well. I would always consider requests, and I would usually carry them out.

 

[Cyc]

A re-cap for me on recent posts...

Quotas - a bad idea. We need thinking Governors.

Spot Votes - a bad idea. Quit changing our Leaders Instructions in the Turn Chat.

Leaders leading - duh... excellent idea. We should focus more on this.

Finding out what we REALLY mean by will of the people - great idea. Let get away from what's the ill of the people and find out what's the will of the people.

Governor's should be keeping the citizens aware of what's going on in their province by means of an active Province thread. If they're not doing that, then we can burn them. But if they are and no one voices any dissent, then they shouldn't be required to post additional threads in the citizen's subforum. They can if they want, or if there is a concern that calls for national discussion on an issue, but they should already have the basics covered in the Province thread. This call for extra work by the Governors is just another attempt at getting spot votes going and/or changing a Leader's/Governor's Instructions at will.

One more thing, has anyone ever seen, or even thought of posting an Instruction of "Disband all cities?". Seriously.

 

[Chieftess]

I was making a hypothetical situation. You know what I mean.

 

[Cyc]

I know what you mean, CT. But most hypothetical situations are usually logical. I can see one of the "Let's bring back Spot Votes" people taking your statement and running with it just because you said.

Hypothetically, if some little punk wanted to disrupt the game bad enough, he could place Instructions in the TCIT that requested disbanding all the cities in his Province. This would probably be his last post in these forums before he fled to his mommy's apron. But I'm sure the President would have the huevos to ignore that Instruction, just as I am sure there would be no citizen going to the bonehead measure of CCing that President for doing so. We don't need a Law or Constitutional Article telling our Leaders how to deal with babies.

 

[Eklektikos]

Just to make my position clear: I was not referring to spot votes of any flavour, but to forum-based council votes which required the support of a majority of department leaders in order for the motion to be passed.

 

[Octavian X]

Just to make my position clear: I was not referring to spot votes of any flavour, but to forum-based council votes which required the support of a majority of department leaders in order for the motion to be passed.

Giving some more power back to the Ministers of the game isn't a bad idea. It could be that a certain plan is viewed by the game's leadership is viewed as essential to the survival of the nation. It could also be that the same plan is hated among a good majority of the populace. The tool of a council vote could be used to impleament a plan favored by the minority, thus protecting the rights of this minority. Again, as Ek stated above, not a council vote in the chat, but one in the forums, requiring a proper quorum.

Granted, the leaders will have to pay come election time if the plan failed, but that's the way a representative democracy works - by using the will of the majority of the people, but allowing some mechanism that prevents, for lack of a better term, 'mob rule.'

 

[Provolution]

Hear hear, kill the mob rule, take the mob rule out of the WOTP. and napalm it.

 

[Ashburnham]

We are so worried about the people. Why can't we allow our leaders to lead? They will still be accountable to us because they are electable and if they are truely bad, then we can CC them. I would prefer leaders to followers. If we had to discuss everything then you can see how childish some of the discusiion became and nothing got done.

I quite agree. True this is a game of Democracy, but we still need things to get done. And that requires leaders. I can see most of the people in this thread are in favor of allowing leaders to lead, and I heartily agree with them. If they don't do the job you'd like, maybe you should run for that position next term. We have to accept a little risk in the power of our leaders if we ever want anything to get done.

 

[DaveShack]

Is there further discusson on the overall original style constitution? We can be making traditional rule updates (probably minimal) in parallel with discussing the alternative idea, so if the alternative falls through then we can just jump-start the game using the old rules.