Initiative: Requiring officials to post all instructions in the instruction thread

[DaveShack]

Whereas forum participation is the only type of participation which allows every citizen to participate regardless of time zone, time of day scheduled for play sessions, access and ability to run chat clients, and countless other factors;

And whereas the whole point of the democracy game is to maximize the potential for citizen involvement;

And whereas the practice of giving instructions during the play session undermines the ability of the people not at the play session to exert checks and balances on the conduct of the game;

Resolved:

For play sessions conducted after passage of this initiative, the people require officials to follow additional procedures for conduct of play sessions, which shall be in effect until either the law is amended or another initiative nullifies this one.

Instructions must be posted in the instruction thread prior to the start of the play session to be valid. Officials may advise the DP during the play session but such advice is not binding and may not contradict posted instructions. Officials who fail to give instructions and then show up at the play session in order to give their instructions in the form of advice to circumvent this initiative are hereby warned that they may be subjected to recall if there is not good cause. DP's who follow advice given during the play session are reminded that such an action must not contradict decisions made by the people, and that the recommended course of action when in doubt is to stop play.
==========================================
Constructive comments may be accepted. Dissenters can vote against it, but it will come to a vote.

 

[Swissempire]

If you do go through with this, you should add a clause allowing officials to call for an end to the tc, so they can revise there instructiolns/ poll the "people".

Also, if you do this, we need to come up with a comprehensive defintion of "Will of the People". For example, in my opinion, the will of the people was that we didn't want to give mongolia an edge militarily because we were going to go to war with them. By getting IW we were infact taking away that edge. In your opinion that was also different. And you should take out that part about a recall. Giving the DP power to recall an offficial is not good.

Thats my constructive comments. Will leave my dissenting vote until the poll

 

[DaveShack]

If you do go through with this, you should add a clause allowing officials to call for an end to the tc, so they can revise there instructiolns/ poll the "people".

There is already that capability -- any official may put in an instruction "stop if XYZ happens" and the DP has to follow it. The point of not allowing instructions to be changed during the chat is an implicit stop condition -- if conditions change to the point that instructions should change, then the people should get a chance to discuss the new conditions.

Also, if you do this, we need to come up with a comprehensive defintion of "Will of the People". For example, in my opinion, the will of the people was that we didn't want to give mongolia an edge militarily because we were going to go to war with them. By getting IW we were infact taking away that edge. In your opinion that was also different. And you should take out that part about a recall. Giving the DP power to recall an offficial is not good.

Thats my constructive comments. Will leave my dissenting vote until the poll

There was also a "we don't want to give Alphabet to anybody because doing so would allow Mongolia to acquire what they want". This is the part that I feel was violated.

The point about the recall is not that the DP will do a recall, but that the people will be justified in a recall if an official consistently fails to post instructions so as to show up at the chat and give those instructions in the form of advice.

 

[Bengeance]

Actually, the only stop orders that must be followed by the DP come from the Tri officials. If a cabinet official wants to have play stopped it must be recognized and backed by a Tri official for it to have any legal binding.

 

[donsig]

Actually, the only stop orders that must be followed by the DP come from the Tri officials. If a cabinet official wants to have play stopped it must be recognized and backed by a Tri official for it to have any legal binding.

If this is true it should be changed though I would recommend doing that in a seperate iniitiative so as not to hinder or otherwise slow down the passage of this one. Officials can still post requests to stop play at certain points.

 

[Strider]

What if they don't have any instructions?

Also, this does little to fix the problem. Leaders can still just post them 3-4 hours before the turnchat, and no one will see them.

 

[Chillaxation]

What if they don't have any instructions?

Also, this does little to fix the problem. Leaders can still just post them 3-4 hours before the turnchat, and no one will see them.

We could enact an amendment requiring officials to post orders a certain amount of time before the TC begins.

 

[robboo]

Strider..what about setting the time between instructions threads posting and the actaul TC. We had about 24 hours this time..not fair for the officials or the citizens..( sorry DaveShack..I think I made my feelings clear on this and no hard feelings)

ALSO...as reply to this initiative. I think WHEN this passes we need to seperate the impreachment/recall of the Tri. Right now it looks like you can only recall all three. But if one person disregards the rules and breaks the initiative presented here we are then stuck with a complete Tri impeachment for one person breaking the rules.

Think of it like this..say you are president and the SoW or SoS screws up. Why should you be held responsible? You would have to vote against your own impeachment despite knowing and agreeing with the SoW/SoS being wrong and needing to be impeached.

WHEN this iniatitive passes I would like to see something splitting the impeachment of the Tri into individual members, that way each person is held responsible for their own actions...I dont write "legalize" so I hope someone steps up to this.