New Bill Proposal

[ravensfire]

I'm very concerned about a call to poll this, when I still have not seen a single, concrete proposal for the exact text of this proposal.

We are not in a parlimentarian system of government, where a proposal such as this makes sense. All of our officials are elected by the people. All appointed official positions must be confirmed by a vote of the people.

Now, we have a proposal to provide a mechanism of censuring an elected official, for any reason! An official, following ALL laws, including the "will of the people" clause can face a censure vote, for no reason!

This is ludicrous! Do you not have faith in the officials you voted for? Consider that early on in some terms, the President did struggle - I can think of several times that some would call for a vote, knowing that they could not file a PI because the official did no wrong!

We HAVE a means to censure officials already in place! Should the official violate a law, the PI process allows any citizen to file a complaint against that official. If the official hasn't violated a law, but has done something that a citizen doesn't like, all citizens are guaranteed the right to post their opinion in the forums, making their displeasure known.

No, this proposal is fatally flawed, and attempts to fix a problem that already has adequate solutions!

Our officials are citizens, and have all the rights thereof, most especially the right of innocent unless proven guilty. This proposal tramples that right, and turns the concept of justice into mob rule.

I hope and pray this proposal sees no further progress.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Noldodan]

RF, I agree with you that this law is fatally flawed. However, I beleive that it can be salvaged. We could take "mob rule" out by making it a TEMPORARY measure that would only last from AFTER the PI is judged to have merit to the end of the PI procedure. It makes a temporary judgement until the week-plus long PI procedure can be completed.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

my call for a poll was because this was a dead thread. Being part of this game for as long as i have been ive noticed a total lack of major league participation in this game. IF we can continue to debate this further and refineing it then no poll shall be brought up.
Please do not dismiss an idea just because you dont like it and prefer to throw it away, thats not the way democracy works

 

[Sarevok]

I agree with this, some rulers are good, others bad. we keep the good ones and trash the rest, and this is a way do do that.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Noldodan
We could take "mob rule" out by making it a TEMPORARY measure that would only last from AFTER the PI is judged to have merit to the end of the PI procedure. It makes a temporary judgement until the week-plus long PI procedure can be completed.

But isn't that nothing more than punishing a person without them being found guilty?

I'm all for working with a law and changing it if needed. The very concept behind this law is flawed though. I have a fundamental problem with allowing leaders to be punished for doing something that is totally legal, but is unpopular. We have a mechanism to deal with this, citizens voicing their opinion.

For those who do support this, I have a few questions.

1. How is this different from a PI?

2. Will this result in punishing a person who has violated no law?

3. How are the rights of the accused leader guaranteed?

4. What does this accomplish that our current legal system does not already do?

I'm quite serious in my opposition to this - I absolutely feel this is a bad law, that fixes a problem that already has a working solution and does not fit our government.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Noldodan]

1. How is this different from a PI?

It is both shorter and (at least in my suggestion) more temporary.

2. Will this result in punishing a person who has violated no law?

On occasion, yes. However, by my suggestion, these instances would be minimized because it requires that a PI be required to have merit.

3. How are the rights of the accused leader guaranteed?

Not quite sure what you mean by this. It seems the same as 2.

4. What does this accomplish that our current legal system does not already do?

It allows a 5 1/2 day shorter time from accusation to punishment.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Noldodan

On occasion, yes. However, by my suggestion, these instances would be minimized because it requires that a PI be required to have merit.

So the PI is judged to have merit, and we immediatly jump to judgement! Post a defense in an organized manner - bah! Who needs it - punish the guilty. And the not-so-guilty! It's all the same! Hang them all!

Any process that refuses to give the accused the presumption of innocense, and defers to the accused because of that is a flawed system of judgement.

Until someone bothers to actually post a concrete proposal instead of talking in these vague generalities, I'm finished discussing this madness. This proposal offends me more than anything I have seen done in this game. The mere concept that we are willing to punish someone who has violated NO LAW is disturbing (note this is from the original proposal).

The interests of justice are not served by speed, but by giving the process the time needed to ensure that the truth is discovered. If I recall correctly, there was a PI in DG2, where if speed had been in such demand as it apparently is here, a guilty person would have been punished as the evidence of their innocence was discovered after they had initially pled guilty.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Dextro]

I agree with D'yer Mak'er when he says that there are no specific guidelines that our rulers need to follow when in office.

And agreeing with him I would like to sort of propose a solution:
Why don't we create some sort of Department Code, a code that would be revised after every election (and at other times if justified), and that would define the guidelines the goverment should follow during its rule(Serving as laws for certain actions/areas not touched by the Constitution).

Within such a system we could introduce this "Vote of Confidence" by turning it into a tool that would warn the rullers that the citizens weren't agreeing with the way the guidelines were being taken into action.

(This is still in a very rude form, maybe someone can help me out and develop this idea?)

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

because this code should be revised after each term, i was wondering, by Department Code, do you mean some kind of "program" worked out by the governmet at the beginning of each term, describing overall playtechnical goals for the term (like, "we're going to try to build these 5 cities, build these wonders, discover these techs and wage these wars)? if that's the idea, then mabye this "mistrust vote" could be used to express public discontet with ineffective play etc.? then the only problem is how to make people actually set these goals. perhaps they could be linked to promises made in the debates.

or do you mean something more like what i was into about having overall rules on how the offices should be run, like what should be posted in the forums and how it should be posted?

 

[Dextro]

I think its more the second option.

It should be a code that defines how offices should be run.

But I also think that this code should be revised every now and then so that it could face the ever changing demands of the game.

 

[donsig]

Might I interject a few comments here?

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the DG3 ruleset has more loopholes and the DG1 and DG2 ruleset. It was also said earlier that DG3 lacks many written rules. To those who think there are too many loop holes I say write some rules. I think you will find that after writing a few, or even trying tp write a few rules you will find how difficult it is to write a rule to accomplish something without creating more loopholes!

I was a big proponent of the reduced ruleset used in DG3 and I still think DG3's rules are better than those used in DG1 or DG2. Why don't you all try living with the current rules set-up and look into fixing some of the more fundamental problems with the demogame. (Chat based versus forum based, real calender versus turn based terms, the division of power amongst the elected officials, etc.)

Also, keep in mind that demogame *laws* can be rules for playing the demogame or they can be parameters for running the demogame civ.

Personally I am against any system that involves a vote of no confidence. Such a system would be little better than the old PI system since a person is the inevitable target of such a vote.

Until the demogame citizens can explicitly detail how they want their civ to be run they will have to leave decisions up to their elected leaders. Instead of putting energy into devising ways to remove elected officials who do not do what the people want, the people should put some energy into figuring out what they want their elected officials to do!

 

[DaveShack]

As I remember it, there has been only one incident where the key distinction between a no-confidence vote and a PI would make a difference.

A no-confidence vote could be used when a leader is proceeding according to the rules, but there is genuine and widespread disagreement with the mechanics of how decisions are made.

To put it simply, we need a mechanism for delaying turns so that appropriate discussion can be conducted. Our current rules are set up so that in the absence of specific instructions, one individual (the DP) can make sweeping and far-reaching unilateral decisions. Sure, sometimes (even a lot of times) the advance preparation is inadequate, but how is forging ahead any better than stopping to think things through?

There have been a number of suggestions, which include the present proposal of allowing a leader to be removed from office even when there have been no laws broken, and turn-based terms where there is no pressure to finish by the end of the month.

Let me now return to the hybrid approach which I have suggested in the past: a combination of time-based terms, turn-based terms, and provisions for early elections. This is intentionally an out of the box idea.

• Set a minimum term length, for example 3 weeks
• Set a maximum term length, for example 8 weeks
• Set a maximum turns per term at some fixed number like 80 (8 chats, 10 per chat)
• Set a minimum number of turns, such as 30
• Early elections (as noted below) include all offices. This is how it works in real parlimentary systems -- if parliment votes no confidence, they also put themselves up for election.
• Elections are held automatically when the maximum time or maximum turns are exceeded, whichever comes first. Nominations can be held in advance since we have some idea when the maximum will occur.
• Early elections can be called by the President, or by some kind of supermajority vote (the no-confidence vote), once the minimum term length has passed. There is a technical difficulty here of how to overlap continuing game play with the election cycle, but I'm sure we can come up with something.

I'm very much against making the actual game instructions into laws, as Donsig seems to be suggesting. I've been under the impression that is what our binding polls are meant to do.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

Originally posted by donsig
Might I interject a few comments here?

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the DG3 ruleset has more loopholes and the DG1 and DG2 ruleset. It was also said earlier that DG3 lacks many written rules. To those who think there are too many loop holes I say write some rules. I think you will find that after writing a few, or even trying tp write a few rules you will find how difficult it is to write a rule to accomplish something without creating more loopholes!

We still live by some of the rules from the former rulesets because they seem to be common sense to use nowadays but yet we shouldve thought of possible incoming players when writing the current ruleset.

Also Donsig how can you not say they are not any loopholes, i do remember you getting a PI for laws people thought you had broken yet cleverly got out of the PI because the laws were so loosly written, now i dont know about you but laws shouldnt be loosly wrtitten but have anough leeway that it the law can bend a bit instead of it being broken completely. but then again i could be wrong, it wont be the first nor the last time

 

[donsig]

@Fionn: I didn't say there weren't any loopholes. I was trying to say that writing rules generates even more loopholes. In general the more rules, the more loopholes - unless the rules are drawn so narrowly that there is little or no room to actually play!

@DaveShack: I'm not worried about key distinctions that differentiate the no confidence vote from a PI. I'm looking at the big picture, the fundamental similarities between the vote of no confidence and a PI. The biggest such similarity is that an individual is targeted by either, rather than some action taken in the game. If citizens are upset because the president started an unpopular war then they should have passed a law specifying when the President is allowed to declare war and when he is not allowed to declare war. I use this one as an example because in the Civ III game war can result from how a pop-up window is handled. It is not a matter where the DP can save the game and ask the citizens in the forum what should be done. A decision must be made then and there. We all know how Civ III is played so it is not too difficult to specify (either in general terms or specific terms or a mixture of these) how the DP should handle pop-ups. This is what the focus of laws should be. Then if the DP violates what the people have commanded you'd have an open and shut case about whether a law was broken and not a political popularity contest.

The issue of handling pop-ups is also crucial since it brings to fore the issue of chats versus the forums. Since a decision must be made then and there should the DP make it him or her-self or go to those at the chat.

If a way to handle pop-ups could be found that makes everyone happy I think there's be little interest in either votes of no confidence or PIs.

 

[ravensfire]

I would like to respond to a comment that donsig made, specifically the idea of handling popups.

Under our current organization, the vast majority of popups that must be responded to are within the domain of the FA Leader. During my term as President, Bootstoots was my FA Leader, and did a great job. His instructions covered just about every possibility, and took some initial thought to develop. While playing, I was able to respond to several issues causing discussion by pointing out the FA instructions. Their clarity, and thoroughness were excellent, and should serve as a starting point for all future instructions.

We play a game where the general types of popups can be planned for, and responses decided. Not having such instructions posted for the DP to follow should be an area that each Leader is responsible for. We, as citizens, should work with the leaders to bring these situations to light and develop our response. In my opinion, what Boots did during his term is a good example of doing just this.

Hey look - a fairly positive post in this thread from me!

-- Ravensfire

 

[D'yer Mak'er]

you are both right, I think.

we need a system for handling the popups, and to cover them in these instructions for the offices is the best way to make it. it would be flexible, allowing the instructions for handling different popups to change overtime, and it would be simple, as no unnecessary writing creating a special apartment for these alone would be needed.

now we just need those instructions. that's a pretty hard thing to make up. to be effective and well written (not unnecessary complicated) for everyone to understand, both civ experience and deomgame experience is needed. I can't really say I have systems like these in the back of my head ready for print :grad:.

my first thought when facing this problem is to ask the people who have already thought a lot about this, the officials themselves! for example, I'm impressed when looking at the current trade office. it's always updated, easy to read (using different colours and types) and very comprahensive, covering all the possible aspects of trade. i'm sure it took some time to make it look that neat, but the thing is, once it's done, the next update is going to be much less laborious. codes for colours, bold, italics etc. are already there. all that is needed is to replace the changed values and comments. i've seen other officials work like this, and it's a good example of one aspect of the work of the officials that could be standardized and thus made much easier for the elected. in the end, an easier life for the officials will mean a more efficient administration. mabye if we ask RegentMan and his contemporaries really kindly, they could help us out here .

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig
I'm not worried about key distinctions that differentiate the no confidence vote from a PI. I'm looking at the big picture, the fundamental similarities between the vote of no confidence and a PI.

The biggest such similarity is that an individual is targeted by either, rather than some action taken in the game. If citizens are upset because the president started an unpopular war then they should have passed a law specifying when the President is allowed to declare war and when he is not allowed to declare war.

My opinion is that people were not so much upset about the war itself, as they were in having their voices silenced. Refusing to listen to the elected leaders during a chat because instructions are not posted in the forum was quite legal, but totally against the spirit of this place, and that is where a method for removing a leader who has broken no laws would come in.

We could go about this another way: how about having a law that any communication, in any public form (with the capability of being visible to anyone else, so PM is out but chat is included), from a leader to the DP is an instruction, and the DP must assume it is legal and leave it up to the courts to decide if it is not.

I do not want to target individuals. See the continuing text of my updated proposal, and you will see that in my proposal, if a vote to hold early elections was held, the entire government would be thrown out and complete elections would be held.

To quote myself:

Originally posted by DaveShack
Let me now return to the hybrid approach which I have suggested in the past: a combination of time-based terms, turn-based terms, and provisions for early elections. This is intentionally an out of the box idea.

• Set a minimum term length, for example 3 weeks
• Set a maximum term length, for example 8 weeks
• Set a maximum turns per term at some fixed number like 80 (8 chats, 10 per chat)
• Set a minimum number of turns, such as 30
• Early elections (as noted below) include all offices. This is how it works in real parlimentary systems -- if parliment votes no confidence, they also put themselves up for election.
• Elections are held automatically when the maximum time or maximum turns are exceeded, whichever comes first. Nominations can be held in advance since we have some idea when the maximum will occur.
• Early elections can be called by the President, or by some kind of supermajority vote (the no-confidence vote), once the minimum term length has passed. There is a technical difficulty here of how to overlap continuing game play with the election cycle, but I'm sure we can come up with something.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by DaveShack

My opinion is that people were not so much upset about the war itself, as they were in having their voices silenced. Refusing to listen to the elected leaders during a chat because instructions are not posted in the forum was quite legal, but totally against the spirit of this place, and that is where a method for removing a leader who has broken no laws would come in.

It is only against the *spirit of this place* if we give priority to those at the chat over those posting in the forum. That is the crux of the term three controversy that still has never been adequately addressed in the demogame. Drop the rhetoric about *refusing to listen to elected leaders*. Wasn't the president also an elected leader back then? This was a case of which elected leader should make the decision, in other words, a political issue. Rather than concoct a method for removing a leader who has broken no laws, would it not be better to construct laws that ensure leaders do what the people say?

Note I used the word say and not want. Leaders cannot do what the people want if the people do not say what they want.

 

[DaveShack]

OK, let's try a what-if

What if we elected a president who started playing a set of turns every day? There is nothing in the law to say how slowly or quickly we play, and with the judicial rulings that no instructions means do what you want, how many turns would go by with a defacto solo player? In this hypothetical situation you can't use a PI to stop it because no laws are broken. Even if you could use a PI, how long does that take?

I have tried to enact laws which would prevent this situation. One example is making stop orders legal. All it would take is a legal order like "do not play until this poll closes" or somesuch and the hypothetical runaway train is stopped. This thread is another attempt to avoid runaway trains. OK, fine, it leaves the door open for someone to go overboard and take out a leader for personal reasons. I guess if someone managed to take over and finish the game in a term we could always start another game and be sure to remember who not to elect, but why not have a way of dealing with it proactively instead of having our hands tied?

 

[donsig]

Ok, I will play your what if game. What if we make a rule specifying how many turns should be played and when? Even more simple, if you don't want the game played every day then what if we make a rule that says the game can't be played everyday? What if we made a rule specifying how often the game can be played. What if we made a rule specifying a maximum number of turns that can be played per given time period? There is nothing that says such rules can't be made, no one's hands are tied. Such rules would address your runaway train fears without opening the door for someone to bring the game to a screeching halt for whatever reason.