Cyc
Looking for the door...
TY
Framing the Code of Laws - Citizen Discussion and Debate
- Thread starter Shaitan
- Start date
chiefpaco
Emperor
Who organizes MPPs? I can't find it in the constitution. It needs a table of contents too 
Shaitan
der Besucher
Foreign Affairs organizes MPPs. A department has dominion over items in the related advisor screen in the game unless they're specifically granted to another department.
I'm working on an indexed version now in HTML (love those bookmarks). But I won't get seriously into it until the COL is adopted.
I'm working on an indexed version now in HTML (love those bookmarks). But I won't get seriously into it until the COL is adopted.
Shaitan
der Besucher
I was hoping to hear from Cyc before polling but he still hasn't posted and we've been waiting for quite a few days with no new content. I'm going to post the proposed poll now and invite feedback on it. If all goes well I'll submit it for Judicial Review tomorrow. This will allow at least another day for comments on the COL.
Proposed Poll:
Do you approve the new Code of Laws? (see 1st post for details)
First Post:
This poll is to approve the Code of Laws. The Code of Laws is currently being used with the temporary status of standards. If this poll results in Congressional (citizen) approval, the temporary status will be removed and the Code of Laws will be enforced as laws.
The Code of Laws can be viewed in this file: Constitution C, v2.0.
Poll Particulars
This poll will remain open until at least 48 hours have passed AND a quorum of citizens has participated. Poll opening time is 00:00 GMT on July XX. Quorum requirement for this poll is 14 respondents. A 2/3 majority is required for this measure to pass.
Proposed Poll:
Do you approve the new Code of Laws? (see 1st post for details)
- Yes
- No
- Abstain
First Post:
This poll is to approve the Code of Laws. The Code of Laws is currently being used with the temporary status of standards. If this poll results in Congressional (citizen) approval, the temporary status will be removed and the Code of Laws will be enforced as laws.
The Code of Laws can be viewed in this file: Constitution C, v2.0.
Poll Particulars
This poll will remain open until at least 48 hours have passed AND a quorum of citizens has participated. Poll opening time is 00:00 GMT on July XX. Quorum requirement for this poll is 14 respondents. A 2/3 majority is required for this measure to pass.
chiefpaco
Emperor
Ok. So if the other diplomatic agreements are in the COL, shouldn't MPP be in as well?
Shaitan
der Besucher
No problem. We'll pop it in there. I'll place it with the default department (FA) unless there are objections.
Shaitan
der Besucher
This poll passes my review for structure, content and cause.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Eklektikos
Eponymous
This poll fulfils all necessary criteria and I therefore approve it.
donsig
Low level intermediary
I guess I should have read the CoL and been active in this thread. I was under the impression that we had a Code of Standards in place as the price of enacting the new constitution. I thought the idea was to give the CoS time to prove itself before we raised it to the level of laws.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Donsig is right. Have any of the current standards been put to any kind of review or test? Do we know if they are worthy of being laws? Why don't we review and approve them by section or sub-section. We don't need to approve them all "en masse" (was that the term?). Even if they are move to laws all at once, the review/approval process could be done by section. Thoughts?
Shaitan
der Besucher
Yes, the vast bulk was tested out in the last version of the Constitution.
May I state that at the present Mobilization is in the hands of Domestic, President and Military, who cand ecide to hold a vote that can greatly ruin culture, and the cultural department can not call it. I believe that if the leader of culture is willing to make these sacrifices in his or her own department then they should be allowed to call the vote as well as the others. It not only stops cultural buildings from being built but halves culture output, so we should be allowed to call the vote if it is in what we believe to be best for Phoenatica.
Shaitan
der Besucher
The cultural aspects of mobilization, great as they are, are a side effect. The offices that have the authority to call a mobilization vote have it because they are intimately tied to it in various ways. The Military leader's tie is obvious. The President is the overall CIC of the military and nation as a whole. The Domestic leader is the overall leader of the homeland. Although culture is indeed greatly affected by a mobilization the office of Culture has nothing to do with war or prosecuting it.
That's my 2 cents anyway.
That's my 2 cents anyway.
Then I counter as this, the added production values are also a side effect, for they are effects caused by declaring mobilization, as is hte cultural effect and the decreased building potential effect. So using your arguments you'd get that no side effect should be used in doing it, and the actual defintion of mobilization in it's used form would be roughly focusing most resources on the war effort, tantamount to only allowing units and buildings, where as the others are side effects, thus nullifying entirely or at least negating some of the effects of the others if we follow your argument.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
As far as the Cultural Department initiating a vote for Mobilization, I have to agree with Shaitan. My two cents is that Mobilization would have negative effects for the Cultural Department, so why would they ever want to call a vote for its enactment?
I posted the following in the poll thread for the acceptance of the COS into the COl "en masse". I know that I said I would support the move, and I do, I just think its too soon now. I am comparing the Constitution ver. 1-10 to the version you listed in the poll, version C2-2 (something like that) at this time. The poll may pass, but I don't think it was posted properly. We should spend the rest of this month passing section by section. Anyway, her's the other post:
Donsig's idea is a good one. Dis' idea is good after a discussion of each "article" or standard.
!. Sorry, Shaitan, I have been quite busy the last two weeks. I try to keep up, but sometimes its difficult to realize what's being proposed/reviewed/polled at the moment.
2.I'm still waiting for the public to join into the discussions. We need more input from the citizens. I quess I waited a little too long for their input. My fault.
I really do think we should take the first standard and post it. Discuss it. "Are there any negative comments about this standard? Or can it be passed on to a law?"
Btw, I am working with (or looking at) the Costitution ver. CV1-10.
The standards are split into 2 catagories - the COL and the COS. If you are refering to the COL being tested during the previous Constitution, how do you explain Section E (I think) about the Judicial Branch? It didn't exist then. If we take each section (the whole section and discuss its merits and drawbacks, we can then fine tune it and paas it into law. The COS in this version are only standards and will have to wait until all of the Sections in the COL are reviewed. Anyway, this is the way I see it.
I posted the following in the poll thread for the acceptance of the COS into the COl "en masse". I know that I said I would support the move, and I do, I just think its too soon now. I am comparing the Constitution ver. 1-10 to the version you listed in the poll, version C2-2 (something like that) at this time. The poll may pass, but I don't think it was posted properly. We should spend the rest of this month passing section by section. Anyway, her's the other post:
Donsig's idea is a good one. Dis' idea is good after a discussion of each "article" or standard.
!. Sorry, Shaitan, I have been quite busy the last two weeks. I try to keep up, but sometimes its difficult to realize what's being proposed/reviewed/polled at the moment.
2.I'm still waiting for the public to join into the discussions. We need more input from the citizens. I quess I waited a little too long for their input. My fault.
I really do think we should take the first standard and post it. Discuss it. "Are there any negative comments about this standard? Or can it be passed on to a law?"
Btw, I am working with (or looking at) the Costitution ver. CV1-10.
The standards are split into 2 catagories - the COL and the COS. If you are refering to the COL being tested during the previous Constitution, how do you explain Section E (I think) about the Judicial Branch? It didn't exist then. If we take each section (the whole section and discuss its merits and drawbacks, we can then fine tune it and paas it into law. The COS in this version are only standards and will have to wait until all of the Sections in the COL are reviewed. Anyway, this is the way I see it.
Shaitan
der Besucher
There are two big problems with taking things "piecemeal" in discussion. First, many parts of the Laws do not fly solo. They are supported by, and in turn support, other sections of the Code. The second is feedback attrition, lack of responses, and fatigue. People have not been interested in working on the COL to the extent that they were willing to work on the Constitution. The likely outcome of this is that I will simply be multiplying my work required to enact the legislation by a factor of 10 and contributions will be at the same level they were for the 2 weeks prior to the poll being posted.
Shaitan
der Besucher
The piecemeal approach will not be necessary. The poll ended with approval for removing the conditional status on the COL. Individual concerns can be addressed as they come up.
I'd like to thank everybody who helped with the Constitution C project with special thanks to Cyc, disorganizer and donsig.
Discussions on new laws should have their own threads started as needed. The Judiciary thread can always be used as a soundingboard as well.
My task list for the Constitution, et al is now:
(Hopefully I'll be done before the game's over.
)
I'd like to thank everybody who helped with the Constitution C project with special thanks to Cyc, disorganizer and donsig.
Discussions on new laws should have their own threads started as needed. The Judiciary thread can always be used as a soundingboard as well.
My task list for the Constitution, et al is now:
- Reformat COL and COS so Duke can post them on the Forum
- HTML page(s) for Constitution, et al, with crossreferences and definitions.
- "Cliff's Notes" version of the combined rules for quick reference and newbies.
(Hopefully I'll be done before the game's over.
)Similar threads
