Law Proposal - Constitutional Articles C-E Take Two

[Provolution]

Legal Discussion - Constitutional Articles C-E

Discussion is hereby announded, and will last 48 hours before a mock poll will be announced. This is a needed revision of the constitutional articles C-E based on game developments.

EXISTING LAW

Article C. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic
Branch, Tactical Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General
Assembly,

PROPOSED LAW

Article C. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic
Branch, Operational Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General
Assembly,

EXISTING LAW

Article D. The Strategic Branch consists of the President, the Vice
President, and the Consuls. The Consuls, as listed below,
are in tasked with deciding on the broader picture of how
Fanatannia will operate.

1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple
areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on
any strategic tasks not designated to another consul
in this constitution. The President is the primary
designated player. He/she has the following
responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee
a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units,
Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed
officials remain in office until removed by a
President. The President also leads discussion on how
to use military and scientific great leaders.

2. Vice President - Assistant to the President. He/she may
take over the President's tasks when the President is
absent. If the President should be removed from office
for any reason the Vice President will then take the
position of President and appoint a Vice President.
The Vice President must be approved by a majority of
the consuls, if the Vice President is appointed mid-term.

3. Consul for Domestic Policy - Oversees long term
settlement, long term worker plans, and long term city
development objectives. Plans government switches.

4. Consul for External Policy - Oversees long term planning
of policy regarding other nations. This includes
military plans, long term foreign affairs, and long term
trading goals.

5. Consul for Cultural Policy - Monitors culture. Pushes
for culture improvements. Fits science and religious
improvements into the big picture. Plans wonder
strategy.

6. Consul for Resources and Technology Policy - Decides on
long term tech queues, long term resource policies,
long term fiscal policies.

Article E. The Tactical Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of micromanagement of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Tactical Branch consists
of the officials below.

1. Commander of Armed Forces - Micromanages the military
operations against foreign countries and unit
(excluding worker, settler, and non-military transport)
movements.

2. Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and
trading. Sets exact tech queue. Manages budget. Adjusts
slider and approves/denies requests from leaders
regarding the use of gold. Also decides on espionage
missions.

3. Director of Infrastructure - Controls the worker
actions. Reviews requests from governors about worker
requests and accepts/denies these.

4. Director of Expansion - Decides on where to settle with
settlers. The Director of Expansion also oversees the
creation of provincal boundaries. Controls movement of
settlers and settler carrying transports.

5. Governors - Each Governor shall determine any policies
and procedures needed to carry out their duties.
Governors are responsible for the care, management,
use of the cities, and use of lands of a province
through the setting of build queues, allocation of
laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of
citizen soldiers.

PROPOSED LAW

Article D. The Strategic Branch consists of the President and the four Strategic Lords of the Realm. The President and Lords are tasked with the defined responsibilities for the grand designs of Fanatannia.


1. President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple
areas of different Lord. He/she will also decide on
any strategic tasks not designated to another Lords
in this constitution. The President is the primary
designated player. He/she has the following
responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee
a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units,
Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed
officials remain in office until removed by a
President. The President also leads discussion on the long term
overall strategic planning for the 130K strategy.

2. Lord Chancellor (LC)- LC crafts the strategy for developing the
Fanatannian land and oversees the long term settlement of
new cities, long term worker plans for national infrastructure, and
long term city development objectives. The LC plans government
switches, war economy and mobilization as well as charting
provincial boundaries.

3. Lord Protector (LP)- LP crafts the long term Fanatannian military
strategy, including leading discussions on military target size
and military budget policies (upkeep and budget/slider related)
and will lead discussions on force composition, organization of
formations and strategic deployment of the military. LP also leads
discussions on major military upgrades and military disbands as
well as the useage of military heroes, and also lobbies the Lord
Steward for military technologies and upgrade budgets. Finally,
the LP leads the planning of legitimate national interests in
foreign territories in case of war.

4. Lord Ambassador (LA) is in charge of all geopolitical planning in
balancing culture, trades, military balance, technologies and
security agreements with all foreign nations, and sets policies on
all foreign agreements and trades with all nations for the term.
LA leads discussions on rules of engagement for foreign units
trespassing national interest areas or national borders as well as
acting upon a declaration of war.

4. Lord Steward (LS) - LS decides on the Fanatannian long term
technology planning, long term wonder strategy planning, long
term fiscal policies and is in charge of the welfare of the people
living in the cities of Fanatannia. LS leads discussions on cultural
and science building policies as well as preparing budgets for
major military upgrades, major foreign relations activities, major
rush policies and a national monetary reserve. Lord Steward is
also in charge of planning long term strategies in curbing
corruption and is therefore in charge of capital and forbidden
palace localization debates, as well as science leaders,

Article E. The Operational Branch consists of the the officials in charge
of operational aspects of the game, within the boundaries of
the Strategic Branch's policy. The Operational Branch consists
of the officials below.

1. Grand Marshal - Makes in-game decisions on all operational
military activity, from troop and naval movements to military
strikes against foreign countries. Commander is also in charge of
naming all military units in sequence of citizen registry.

2. Prime Minister (PM)- The PM decides on specific foreign affairs
and trade agreements and adjusts exact technology queue.
The PM is also in charge turn to turn handling of the budget slider
budget slider and approves/denies requests from leaders
regarding the use of gold. The PM Also decides on specific
espionage missions and the establishment of embassies.


3. The Colonial Minister (CM) is in charge of distributing workers to
provinces, and labeling the workers by their Provincial ID.
Finally, the CM assess the settlement options in the
game and run discussions on the localization of cities.

4. Governors - Each Governor shall determine any policies
and procedures needed to carry out their duties within their
respective province. Governors are responsible for the
management of their provincial cities, and use of lands of a
province through the setting of build queues, allocation of
laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of
citizen soldiers. The governors are also in charge of managing the
workers allocated by the Prime Minister to their province.
Finally, governors are in charge of monitoring culture and
corruption in their cities and observe the strategies crafted by
the President and Lords

Wording revision note, Consul to be replaced with Lord.
__________________

MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS FROM OLD PROPOSAL

Legislation

Vice President omitted as a position and a legal paradox, VP as a concept is terminated as a Chain of Command concept and a legal problem.
Fewer positions to handle gives clear fields of responsibility

President given the authority to lead for 130K Culture win

Democracy

*


More competition for less posision give better elections (3 less, one new)

All positions in Chain of Command and City naming list are now elected

More city name rights for citizens (2 more)

VP is not appointed anymore, deleted, all CoC positions are now elected

Each position has more clearly defined accountable tasks




Efficiency

*


More useful tasks for each position

Viable and powerful offices

Removal of redundant positions

Workers transferred to Governor control (End of Director of Infrastructure)

Culture strategic leadership transferred to DP (End of Culture Consul)

Wonders transferred to technology planner

Culture and science building planning to technology planner

Foreign agreements and trade agreements combined back again (Lord Ambassador)

No more confusion over settlers and escorts and military units, all settler and military units now handled by one office. (End of Director of Expansion)




Checks of balances

*


Reestablishment of separate long term military planner and separate long term
international relations planner.

Making the Short Term planners on the level of influence with long term
planners by removing one office and keeping two.

Transferring workers to governors, making these more powerful


IDENTITY

Names does sound more British-like with King, Lords, Grand Marshal and Prime Minister and the titles are more in character with the nation we picked. Consuls and Directors titles are ok, but more British sounding titles would be fun.

CITIZEN INPUT


ASHBURNHAM

I prefer combining FA with Trade only, not Culture. Give Culture to the Science/Finance office

Done

TimBentley

I think revolution would better fit under domestic consul. Government only has a minor (I basically ignore it) effect on foreign affairs. And I thought you wanted province border discussion under the culture consul, or the proposed FTC consul.

Done, with Province borders to Domestic.

mad-bax

I would make the Presidents role much more powerful. I would make that position responsible for creating a coherent overall strategy based on individual consular strategies, which in turn is based upon the will of the people.

How the strategic offices are divided up doesn't really bother me, except in that they should be made interesting. More power and fewer positions would increase the competition for positions and make the polls more interesting. The first poll discussions for this game were a bit toothless I thought, and lacked any real passion.

FWIW I think that the infrastructure job should go too. Let the governors use the workers they build. The governors could then horse trade between provinces. "I'll sell you a worker in exchange for a rifleman to defend Xville" kind of thing.


Done, Culture is now the strategic responsibility of the President, now King.
Governors now get the workers. Strategic offices made more interesting.

BERTIE

I really like the idea of reducing the number of offices and giving officeholders more to do (and also allow them a little more freedom to act). I would also agree with giving governors more power and reducing or eliminating the number of infrastructure positions. Mad-bax’s point about fewer offices leading to more spirited campaigns for office is excellent. I would hope the candidates in their debates would take the opportunity to more fully develop their strategies for how they intent to conduct business for the upcoming term. Then once they take office they can spend more time accomplishing rather than formulating their goals.

I’m a n00b so I’m somewhat unschooled about the mechanics of the Demo Game anyway, but I find it confusing that in some cases we have similar, related discussions spread out among several different threads. I think combining related duties and functions in fewer offices would lead to more focused discussion and a better-played, more enjoyable game.

Done, as you asked for.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

Article C. The government will consist of four branches: Strategic
Branch, Operational Branch, Judicial Branch, and the General
Assembly,

The strategic branch and tactical branches sound like they would be very similar...

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I can agree that fewer positions at election will result in more competition, and in theory, that should lead to better elections.

But let's step back for a second. First, is the quality of our elections a problem? Given only half a term into the game, I would argue that it is not a problem, and in fact, the elections could be a success story given the hard work of everyone in office now, I have been incredibly impressed with how they are working together to solve problems and get things done in the game.

Secondly, does the benefits of this change offset the downside, which to me means that fewer offices mean fewer folks in government positions driving the game, and it potentially closes doors to new people coming in who want to get elected to small office first in order to start making their name in the game.

I would favor as many offices as we can support, and yes, some have little responsibility depending on the point in the game, but it does allow those who can't attend chat, or are new, to bite off little pieces and see if they like it.

So, in summary, I am not opposed to change. I expect though that any changes I support will be backed up by showing how they help the game.

I am just not seeing the sum of the improvements proposed here adding up to greater than the value of continuing on the path we are on.

 

[DaveShack]

There is admittedly one possible argument that having more offices has a negative effect, and that is the high number of uncontested elections. This could be because other potential candidates were satisfied with the existing nominees and decided not to run, or that they did not expect to win so decided not to try. It could also mean that some people decided not to run based on disagreement with the system itself. Or we could just have more offices than the population can support.

Given where this is in the process and when nominations start, it does not seem possible to change things in time for term 2. We'll likely have another election at status quo to use as additional data on whether more offices are hurting us or not.

 

[mad-bax]

I agree that it would be best to run another election round to gauge whether the number of offices should be reduced or not, and also to give this constitution a chance before assigning it to the bin.

One other argument I would put forward for reducing the number of offices is for purely gameplay reasons. Merging some offices should lead to more coherent decisionmaking and less contradictory instructions for the DP. In particular the Infrastructure job needs to go. Although Chieftess is emminently capable, she is in an impossible position. She can have no firm idea as to what each town is intended to do, or where the next town will be etc. This has led to tiles being worked and then not used, and tiles being roaded when they are likely to be used as a city site.

Whether the constitution must be changed or not is an open issue for me. However, the discussion is valid and healthy IMO, and should continue.

But lets have another round of elections first and make sure that any ammendment we may make is better and not just different.

 

[Bertie]

Provolution, you’ve been doing good work in raising some of these Constitutional issues. I’ve largely stayed out of these discussions because I’m more interested in the gameplay aspect of the Demo Game than I am in the governmental aspect; but this isn’t a succession game. I’m a citizen of Fanatannia with all the privileges and duties that entails; and one of the duties is taking an interest in Constitutional questions.

Another reason I’ve stayed out of these discussions is because I don’t have a solution. My greatest frustration in the game thus far has been the disjointed nature of discussions. We have a jillion offices, so of course we have a jillion threads, because each office holder quite properly wants to do a good job, so starts a thread specific to his responsibilities. This would be fine if there was a greater effort to coordinate the discussions in areas where there are overlapping responsibilities; but I’m not seeing this. This isn’t a criticism of anyone; rather it’s meant to be more of an observation on how the structure of the Constitution indirectly shapes (IMO thwarts, at the moment) gameplay. For this reason I support fewer offices.

This actually might be a very good Constitution: at least for game conditions beginning around 10AD. It’s not a good Constitution for game conditions now. Everything affects everything in Civ, but this is particularly true for the first 4000 years or so. The game is very organic, unpredictable, and nonlinear at the beginning. City placement, production queues, exploration & military movement, worker tasks, research goals, and so forth are all intertwined. Later on they’re still intertwined, but the game becomes much more predictable and linear, and it’s easier for Minister X to concentrate on his duties without paying particular attention to what Minister Y may be planning to do. The Constitution as it stands now seems better suited to the linear part of the game.

I have two general solutions to offer. First, starting now and continuing for the next two thousand years or so we may want to start just one discussion thread for each turnchat in the Citizen’s Forum. The advantage of this is that all discussion for all aspects of the game for a given turnchat are gathered in one place. The major disadvantage is such a thread can become a little chaotic.

The second solution is to plan to adjust the Constitution as the game progresses not through amendments offered whenever (although anyone could still offer an amendment at any time) but rather at predetermined mile posts. For example, after two or three terms adjust the Constitution; or in the worst case, create an entirely new one. I envision this as putting the entire Constitution and proposed alternatives up for vote: the winner would be determined by a majority of those voting in the polls (runoffs may be necessary if there are more than two choices).

BTW, I understand the reluctance of many to give the DP too much latitude to make in-game decisions that conflict with an official’s instructions. (Although I’m a n00b I casually lurked the last two Demo Games so I’m well aware of past conflicts and personality clashes; and I read parts of the archives of Demo Game 3.) However, I suggest that during the first 4000 years (at least during Despotism, which would be in character with role play) the DP be given more freedom to act unilaterally without being subject to sanction. More freedom, not unfettered freedom.

Last, I read in another thread that you’re thinking of leaving the Demo Game, Provolution. I hope you reconsider.

 

[mad-bax]

I started an unofficial strategy thread specifically to bring the discussion of the "whole" game into one place. No interest.

Daveshack then started an official thread with the same purpose. Again, no interest.

Somehow we need to get a grip of what gets posted where. I am probably the worst culprit. Whatever is in my head ends up in post and it is not necessarily in the most appropriate place. I would therefore propose a stickied discussion thread for each office. The first post of each thread would contain that offices plan for the term and could be modified as required. These threads could be unstuck and replaced after each term perhaps. All other non-official tittle tattle could then be filtered out by people as required.Just an idea.

I find myself stuck between wanting to improve the gameplay process enough so that we can play a decent game, and respecting the premise of the demogame, which appears to me at least an attempt to run a game by committee. The poor decision making, and conflicts of interest and philosophy that results, is what makes the game what it is.

When push comes to shove I think that a change would be beneficial, and Provos ammendments contain nothing to which I object. My only reservation is as Bertie says, that the game will become bigger, and more predictable over the next 6 weeks, and by that time the change may be too late to have the desired effect. My "feeling" is that I will vote for it. But I reserve the right to vascillate endlessly. It is after all my right.

 

[Provolution]

This proposal, or related discussions, have been stopped endless times. The reform movement has been effectively snuffed out by various forces and circumstances. So here we go, we got no chance to reform what could have been reformed a couple of weeks back. Yet, the reactionary side won, and we got to live with the end product here. If you gentlemen are satisfied with the existing system, I rest my case, which I will do anyways due to IRL issues, yes, I am running my own company with 14 employees and writes a sci fi novel, which is why I can spam these forum pages faster than you can say CFC. On the top of that, the worlds oldest reason, women.

I had good fun here, but a hoot like me know when to leave a party and not be a party pooper, especially when I am explicitly told to go. Heck, I may send a sample of my novel to Mad-Bax, Moth and Bertie, for the hell of it, since I like to exchange posts with them and may need some feed back on the core story. I figure I stay in touch with some of the folks I connect well with in postings, and leave the rest, as time is short, and time is money.

 

[mad-bax]

As soon as you even whisper "conspiracy theory" it turns people off. You get labelled at worst a "nutter" and at best "colourful" whether you are or not. The people who you point your finger at take umbrage immediately. All of a sudden the argument gets diverted from substance to personality, from fact to supposition, from objectivity to subjectivity. The debate becomes muddied and you end up as a target. IMHO this is why people don't subscribe to your point of view in the numbers you would like. In doing so they also have to take on the baggage of the rhetoric. Few People will make the effort to see past the rhetoric and look at the argument itself.

The ammendments you have put forward have been arrived at properly. You have discussed the reasoning behind them, sought the opinion of other people and then modified them to be reasonable to those on your side of the fence that bothered to contribute. Whether they are better than what we have now is the question. People will have different opinions of course, and trying to change peoples opinions is very difficult. Unfortunately, the only people contributing are the few that can tolerate the rhetoric.

You have an interesting sig. You should read it sometime.

I hope you reconsider leaving the game. Without people to question it and push for change, the constitution will not be examined and a major part of what the DG is will be lost. It will become just a glorified SG where the next in the roster is voted for rather than just takes his turn.

You can send me the draft manuscript if you like. It would be an honour to critique it. Be warned though... I'm a nutter.

 

[Black_Hole]

Could have guessed novel writing provo

 

[DaveShack]

So here we go, we got no chance to reform what could have been reformed a couple of weeks back.

I would disagree with saying there is no chance to make changes. The quality of the proposals and the attendent discussion has improved over these several iterations. My only point was that for term 2 the process would take too long -- but there is no reason something like this could not continue on a timeframe for a later term. Many of us are saying we're open to realistic changes to correct actual problems, and this is getting close to meeting that standard.

 

[Provolution]

DS I agree on that, as the Shenanigan troops shined with their absence.

 

[blackheart]

DS I agree on that, as the Shenanigan troops shined with their absence.

The Shenanigan troops are still here .

Don't really have an opinion one way or another on this.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I am tired of accusations and implications. Put up or shut up. If someone disagrees with the idea it is not that they are against you, they are concerned about the issue.

You have proposed sweeping changes to the government without even a term complete. We don't even know if what we are doing is wrong, and we have some evidence we are on a good path. We certainly have absolutely zero proof that what you propose is better. It's just different. That's not reform. It's change to satisfy some need to change.

I think it is too early to make unnecessary sweeping changes, perhaps later we will find a definate need to overhaul the system, but not yet. At that point, we would also have a far better idea of what changes are needed.

I also think limiting participation in government positions is not the way to encourage involvement in the game, which is the entire point of the existance of this forum.

That's why I can't bring myself to support your "reform". Others have their own views I am sure, and no, we darn "reactionary" folks don't have secret meetings to get our notes straight.

 

[Provolution]

Bill that is your opinion. I did not accuse you of any, but this constitution came about with a bare minimum of more votes in a poll, and not enough to ratify it. Saying that the ones that disagrees with the constitution should put up and shut up is exactly what has been happening, we have indeed been shut up, effectively so.

We already know what is wrong, some of us see the same diagnosis, you don't, which is your privilege. I also pointed out that the "reactionary" folks is not a group per se, but the method is common, to kill the debate in place of analyzing the problems and proposing improvements. The main slogan is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Some of us do not share that philosophy. However, it is a very good proverb to end the debate.

Now, I also concede defeat here, I am not going to push this "unnecessary sweeping reform" any longer, and I will leave you to your devices. Another thing is that I am not going for any of the elections, and would not even be there to question the establishment. Questioning criticism seems accepted, but not novel solutions and proposals to remedy the problem are discouraged. Yet, it is IRL that causes the chosen exile.

Well, I will PM a couple of the posters here on non-DG issues, due to their excellent and entertaining writing style, which would be good to correspond with for non DG reasons.

 

[blackheart]

The main slogan is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Some of us do not share that philosophy. However, it is a very good proverb to end the debate.

So your slogan is "If it ain't broke, fix it til it is?"

Am I missing a point here, but what's wrong with the current government?

 

[Provolution]

Nlackheart, I leave you and your arguments to the others willing, patient and able to put up with your arguments and interest to close down this debate.

 

[mad-bax]

Well... nominations are under way, and we have 5 accepted nominations for the External consulate, some of the Judiciary positions have candidates and pretty much none of the others. Certainly, no new players have gone for those positions, just the ol@ die hards. Must be a story in that somewhere.

I think the evidence is beginning to point at it being broke actually. I would reduce the number of consular jobs to 3, Kill the infrastructure job and make VP an elected position with a real job.

I'll re-read Provos ammendment and if it satisfies most of this I'll vote for it.

 

[Provolution]

Mad Bax, External Consulate is heavily contested as it is a very interesting and powerful office. However, that 5 candidates wants it, shows that we need to split the powers of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and that of Military. In the drafted proposal, the VP is omitted (actually Domestic Consul as VP), and infrastructure job is transferred to governors.

People must get to understand that long term military planning is actually doable.

 

[blackheart]

Mad Bax, External Consulate is heavily contested as it is a very interesting and powerful office. However, that 5 candidates wants it, shows that we need to split the powers of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and that of Military. In the drafted proposal, the VP is omitted (actually Domestic Consul as VP), and infrastructure job is transferred to governors.

People must get to understand that long term military planning is actually doable.

I remember we had this discussion last DG, when people wanted FA and Trade to go together. Look how it worked out last DG compared with this DG. Oh wait, we can't, since this DG has just started.