Hurried or Thoughtful Constitution?

[Black_Hole]

It has come to the point that we must decide one major factor.
Should we create a quality constitution even though we will have no constitution much of term 1? Or should we hurry along a constitution that may not be the best thing? As I see it there are no other options as the mods will push us forward no matter what.


My personal view is we should create a quality constitution. Heck we could be making the largest change in DG history(a move to alternate government) and we can't just spend 2 days on the constitution. Maybe if we have a thoughtful president we just won't play the game in term 1...

So what is everyone elses thoughts?

 

[Strider]

It has come to the point that we must decide one major factor.
Should we create a quality constitution even though we will have no constitution much of term 1? Or should we hurry along a constitution that may not be the best thing? As I see it there are no other options as the mods will push us forward no matter what.


My personal view is we should create a quality constitution. Heck we could be making the largest change in DG history(a move to alternate government) and we can't just spend 2 days on the constitution. Maybe if we have a thoughtful president we just won't play the game in term 1...

So what is everyone elses thoughts?

It's not really a choice between quality or time. I can have my modified version mopped up in about a week if I can get some good input (the thread unlocked), and a headache free day.

Also, doesn't it seem smarter to waste our time actually working on the constitutions, instead of creating stupid discussions like this?

 

[Provolution]

Actually CT paralyzed the discussions by closing them and forcing a long poll.
Obviously, one more week and a short poll would do it.

Yet, we can just add a barrage of amendments in Term One.

 

[ravensfire]

The vast majority of the Constitution won't change. Implimenting DaveShack's proposal will require rewriting Article E.

Governors retain the same powers they've had. All the other discussions and polls remain valid. Crafting a new Article E will take less than a week to accomplish if enough people give it some effort.

The core concepts have been discussed. The majority of the discussions will lie in determing the roles each office will have. That's not going to take a great deal of time to do.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Given the closeness of the government structure poll, how about keeping the standard 6 positions as the strategic council, and electing a mirror set of tactical equivalents. Think of the strategic and tactical positions being deputies of each other (mutual backups) and not a whole lot else would need to change. We could maybe even work in the substance of Strider's changes and maybe everyone gets something close to what they want.

 

[Provolution]

I suggest we legislate amendments piecemeal, so that the majority wanting a merger and restribution of offices get their say. I know my alternative was a compromise position to the traditional setup, but I know the majority want FA/TA to merge, and to redistribute Culture, as well as ceding away some power from the superministries of domestic and military. I also support the compromise of keeping directors as appointed deputies, which will reduce the number of electorate positions. Still, I believe a reduction from 6 to 5 positions would benefit the strategic council.

I think this would be a unifying compromise that can gain a sizable majority.

Separately, I suggest that a National Trade Tax and provincial income based on local resources traded would make the game more interesting. I can see lively debates on provincial borders take place, and allowing the governors to interact with FA-Trade and Finance/Science in a new manner.

 

[Black_Hole]

well that plan consists of making all of our polls valid, and just ratifying the entire constitution instead of individual articles...

So should compromise between striders plan and the alternate government? if we do about 55% of the government should be alternate with the other 45% could be striders plan

 

[Provolution]

Indeed, the criteria for discussion and polling should be crystal clear, and not some mickey mouse autocratic intervention. Again, I do not have Civ3 on my harddrive, but I can really see the need for fair criteria on general grounds.

 

[classical_hero]

It seems like that we will rush into this game having a barely workable constitution that we not have changed. We seem to so stuck with the status quo that we are afraid of trying to make things better and more workable. We are going to go on the same path that the previous game. I implore Cheiftess to remove the start date because we are not ready for the start yet.

 

[Black_Hole]

It seems like that we will rush into this game having a barely workable constitution that we not have changed. We seem to so stuck with the status quo that we are afraid of trying to make things better and more workable. We are going to go on the same path that the previous game. I implore Cheiftess to remove the start date because we are not ready for the start yet.

i doubt she will, heck we had an entire petition that was closed...
I severly doubt we can make, ratifiy articles, and ratify the entire constitution in 6 days(nominations time)
another problem wiht the government strucute poll is many people didnt vote because they didnt like the CT poll structuring...

 

[Cyc]

Given the closeness of the government structure poll, how about keeping the standard 6 positions as the strategic council, and electing a mirror set of tactical equivalents. Think of the strategic and tactical positions being deputies of each other (mutual backups) and not a whole lot else would need to change. We could maybe even work in the substance of Strider's changes and maybe everyone gets something close to what they want.

Actually, this is a great compromise. We have the Traditional setup, We change the duties of the Ministers to that of Strategic Ministers and elevate Deputies to Tacical Directors, but we would just keep the Traditional names. The Ministers would be responsible for obtaining the WOTP on issues concerning their Department (pretty much the same as now), but the Deputies would be responsible for designing and posting the Instructions.

This would put us at a minimum of 16 elected positions. Unless we use Provo's suggestion of the Minister appointing their Deputies (which in the Traditional game I was all for), then that's a minimum of 10 elected positions. (The President would appoint the VP.) Then you people could debate the DP position, but I believe the CoC using a standard order would work just fine.

So if we adopt this setup, maybe we can get the Mods to hold off on the forced start date and just allow us to start in March when we have this wrapped up. That way we can have a short month trial period, using a Modified DG5 Alternative, that still resembles the Traditional Structure enough to be easy to follow. If the trial period works, we can keep it or improve it. If we find we don't like the new setup, we can scrap it for the second Term. Either way, it will be a monumentally historic leap DG-wise happening at the easiest part of the game.

 

[ravensfire]

17 elected positions

DS, I admire the concept of the idea, but that's a huge number of elected positions, in the first term! Imagine towards the end, when we've got 5-6 provinces. I like the idea of each position being a deputy of the other - keeps it simple.

Could we cut the number of directors to 4 per side and see how that works out?
-- Interior
-- Military
-- Trade/Science
-- FA/Culture (after all, a big part of culture is how other Civ's culture affects us)

That gives us:
Executive (9): President, 8 directors
Legislative (1+): Governors
Judicial (3): CJ, PD, JA

President, Governor and Judicial positions remain the same, including deputies. Directors split into strat and tac focus, with each position elected seperately. No deputies, instead each acts as deputy for the other. Strat instructions posted every other week, updated as needed, tac posted once per game play session.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

An increase in the number of elected positions helps those who wish for more uncontested elections. Not naming any names here (Cough Groan).

Not changing from 6 positions to 4 is just a way to keep the "traditionalist party" from claiming we're changing too much and the sky is falling. Combining Domestic with Culture would make sense because Domestic's influence falls at the end of the expansion phase which is the same time that cultural aspects pick up. I have always thought that Trade, Science, and science slider belong together.

 

[Black_Hole]

17 elected positions

DS, I admire the concept of the idea, but that's a huge number of elected positions, in the first term! Imagine towards the end, when we've got 5-6 provinces. I like the idea of each position being a deputy of the other - keeps it simple.

Could we cut the number of directors to 4 per side and see how that works out?
-- Interior
-- Military
-- Trade/Science
-- FA/Culture (after all, a big part of culture is how other Civ's culture affects us)

That gives us:
Executive (9): President, 8 directors
Legislative (1+): Governors
Judicial (3): CJ, PD, JA

President, Governor and Judicial positions remain the same, including deputies. Directors split into strat and tac focus, with each position elected seperately. No deputies, instead each acts as deputy for the other. Strat instructions posted every other week, updated as needed, tac posted once per game play session.

-- Ravensfire

if we do this i would like to see trade and foreign together, they both use the trade screen and many trades are dependant on each other... I hear you on foreign affairds needing working with the culture of other nations, however culture wont directly affect our trades as trades will do. This leaves science and culture together

 

[Cyc]

Of Culture and Domestic, Culture and F/A, or Culture and Science, I believe I like Culture and Science the best.

Domestic makes a lot of sense in the traditional view and that's where I'd normally put it. Then I had no real problem with Ravensfire's proposal of combining it with F/A, cause Culture represents our borders. But I agree with Black_Hole, as Domestic can stand by itself (very Active and powerful). Trade with F/A makes a hell of a lot of sense to me. Plus, I think a Science Director who is also in charge of Culture is a very good thing to have in Civ3. We need to know where we're going and how we're going to get there as far as Wonders go.

 

[Black_Hole]

now im going over DaveShack's idea, I like the idea of it but a few details need to be set.
If we have 16 elected positions we should allow people to hold 2 offices, and those offices must be in different branchs, but another idea is that not all positions have to be held in the later game... for example all we need is 6/12 of the positions each in its own area... if there is no long term military minister the short term military minister takes over the long term ministers roles until(if ever) someone is appointed

so technically this government could be exactly like a traditional one, but leaves the option for a split
this would be a very gentle ease into the alternate government system, and who knows maybe if it works good this game we can expand on it next

 

[Cyc]

We had 11 elected positions opening DG5. If we use DaveShack's suggestion with Provo's suggestion of the Strategic Ministers appointing their Tacical Deputies, that will be 11 elected positions.

 

[Black_Hole]

We had 11 elected positions opening DG5. If we use DaveShack's suggestion with Provo's suggestion of the Strategic Ministers appointing their Tacical Deputies, that will be 11 elected positions.

i dont like the idea of not electing tactical ministers or classifying them as deputies. It is a great idea to have both sets be deputies of each other, but not having just one set be the deputy

 

[DaveShack]

We had 11 elected positions opening DG5. If we use DaveShack's suggestion with Provo's suggestion of the Strategic Ministers appointing their Tacical Deputies, that will be 11 elected positions.

Part of the point of electing strategic and tactical separately is to eliminate the problem of how to select a deputy.

How about this, if the strategic or tactical position remains open after the election, the other one for the same role appoints someone?

Another option is to allow the same person to hold both the strategic and tactical positions for the same office.

 

[Black_Hole]

Part of the point of electing strategic and tactical separately is to eliminate the problem of how to select a deputy.

How about this, if the strategic or tactical position remains open after the election, the other one for the same role appoints someone?

Another option is to allow the same person to hold both the strategic and tactical positions for the same office.

have the option for the other person to appoint, but the president must approve... but it shouldnt be required that that position is held