minimalization of rules (PPO discussion 3)

[disorganizer]

Sponsored by the Power to the People Organization (PPO), we would like you, our citizens, to discuss one of the issues of our manifest in here. We would like to work out a working ammendment or at least a list of items to be implemented we could campaign for.

Topic:
MINIMALIZATION OF RULES

What does this mean?
We would like to cut down on the number of rules we have. With the constitution we have now or the new proposal of the "3 books", our citizens get scared away before they even really join. Besides, almost nobody know all rules. So a cut down is really needed. Which rules are really important? This is the discussion base here.

How can we implement this?
That is what we would like to find out. We will update a summary of the proposals in post#2 of this thread during discussion. As we come to a conclusion, this summary is taken to a campaing and maybe even to a constitutional amendment.

What should we do now?
Start discussing the issue. No point here is fixed, this is all based on discussion.

 

[disorganizer]

reserved

 

[Lovro]

disorganizer made some fine points and I couldn't agree with him more on this topic. The current constitution is too rigorous and prevents us from playing a normal game instead of being a helpful tool in solving problems (not to mention all the redundant constitution discussions).

The constitution should be brought to a minimum, explaining only the basic rules of the game, while any inclarities should be handled by citizen polls.

 

[Shaitan]

I'd like to point out that the document that you describe as your goal is pretty much what this game started out with. It was added to, modified, codified and manipulated because it was insufficient. Each time an item came up that was not specifically covered in the sparse constitution, massive upheaval occured. Threats of impeachment were even more common than they are now. A large number of citizens ritually objected to any action that could be construed as contrary to the constitution, regardless of whether they were correct if the constitution were construed another way. In effect, we are working with a much larger document because the citizenry, by its action, demanded it.

 

[disorganizer]

yes, but was/is it right? Maybe the rules should just define the basics.

I know the original constitution, and it made problem because it was very vague AND tried to detail some things.
Maybe we should not detail at all in it. A rulebase and a set of "best practices" would do the job i think.

 

[Shaitan]

A rulebase and standards is what we're working on right now

 

[disorganizer]

yeah. its just we make it too "big" again. too many basic rules in too "english" language. make it for the simple-minded and stupid, like me.
reduce to a minimum. the rest will be based on discussion, thats our goal.

 

[Shaitan]

The current plan is to have a constitution that can defend itself and direct the game. This has to be a fairly intense and carefully worded document. There will also be an "executive brief" version. Very short, to the point, plain english, and hitting the high points to allow a quick read and fair understanding without wading through the larger document.

 

[Immortal]

Naturally, since the positions of the government will be elected, and the cabinet has not direct power, the threat of impeachment is virtually non-existent. It is only through shaping rules into specific instances that problems occur (like with the President right now, he followed the rules, but decided to follow his conscience, we would make it so he wouldnt have held the spot vote at all, but would have known his instructions well in advance.

Our vision has greatness in mind, if everyone co-operates, it will work.

 

[disorganizer]

lets take an example:
rules:
1) citizenry has full controll of decissions
2) chats are used for playout of the rules
...
in addition to these, we will have to discuss our "best practices" for those rules, which we add as attachment (posts) to the thread holding the rules in the firs post. cross-linking between rules and best-practices should be done.
best practices:
1)
* polls should be up for a minimum of 2 days
* they should be proceeded by a discussion up for 2 days
* the poll results should be summarized to a turn instruction thread a minimum of 1 hour before the chat starts
..
2)
* a schedule for the chat is announced a minimum of 24h in advance and latest at sunday for the following week in the thread xyz
* the coc of the chat is elected, a game-handover to a higher ranked player is not done when he arrives late
...


these are of course just examples to show how it could work
the base-rules should be extremly hard to change, like 2/3 majority of average number of active citizens.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Immortal
Naturally, since the positions of the government will be elected, and the cabinet has not direct power, the threat of impeachment is virtually non-existent. It is only through shaping rules into specific instances that problems occur (like with the President right now, he followed the rules, but decided to follow his conscience, we would make it so he wouldnt have held the spot vote at all, but would have known his instructions well in advance.

Our vision has greatness in mind, if everyone co-operates, it will work.

Getting the instructions to the President in advance can be done right now, with no changes to anything.

A strategy that depends upon everyone co-operating is not very realistic.

disorganizer - Once again, you've described exactly what we are doing now with the constitution. Give us some examples of the rules that we currently have that you would remove. Then describe how it would be handled when the situations that those rules cover come up and there is no rule or standard to define it.

 

[disorganizer]

thats what we discuss here. you finaly got the point

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
thats what we discuss here. you finaly got the point

You got me.

Okay, so can you give an example? Something to show that this is a feasable endeavor?

 

[disorganizer]

im at work till now. maybe later.
an idea is: make the rules max 1 sentence per rule. easy english. no law-stuff.

 

[Immortal]

Originally posted by Shaitan
A strategy that depends upon everyone co-operating is not very realistic.

Im sorry you feel that way, I truly am.

And there probably will not be that many polls that require a large level of discussion, science for instance will not require more then 1 poll every 2 sessions. Domestic advisors will only need to poll every 2,3 to15 sessions. Military advisor, during a time of war will have to poll about general paths to the enemy, but hs still does manage the movement of the units, and which units to move. Trade will only require polls every 4 sessions, see? The amount of polls is not as large as it seems.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Immortal
Im sorry you feel that way, I truly am.

Me too but life and a brief trip through the Forum confirmed it.

And there probably will not be that many polls that require a large level of discussion, science for instance will not require more then 1 poll every 2 sessions. Domestic advisors will only need to poll every 2,3 to15 sessions. Military advisor, during a time of war will have to poll about general paths to the enemy, but hs still does manage the movement of the units, and which units to move. Trade will only require polls every 4 sessions, see? The amount of polls is not as large as it seems.

You are describing less discussion and polling that we have now but the system you are promoting demands more discussion and polling.

 

[Immortal]

well then myself and disorganizer will have to discuss to find a happy medium, please note these are my opinions, not necessarily the opinions of the PPO.

Also, Ive gotten terribly off topic so lets move back on: We shouldnt necessarily eliminate some laws, only reword them and condense the size of the laws to reduce interpretation. The more straightforward the law is, the better it will be in protecting everyone in the game.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Immortal
Also, Ive gotten terribly off topic so lets move back on: We shouldnt necessarily eliminate some laws, only reword them and condense the size of the laws to reduce interpretation. The more straightforward the law is, the better it will be in protecting everyone in the game.

Now that is something we can agree on. Pop over to the Constitution Construction Site. Feedback, comments and debate are very much requested there.

 

[Zur]

I feel that we should greatly *simplify* the rules instead of reducing them. Having no rules on certain topics would simply lead to greater confusion in those circumstances.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Zur
I feel that we should greatly *simplify* the rules instead of reducing them. Having no rules on certain topics would simply lead to greater confusion in those circumstances.

I definitely agree with this thought. Any specific recommendations would be very helpful. Please contribute to the discussions in the new revamped Consititution thread as well as the thread in my post above.