New Bill Proposal

[ravensfire]

Daveshack,

The problem with such an proposal is that while it can stop a runaway DP, we now have the problem of a runaway Leader. This person could do the exact opposite of the runaway DP, and prevent ANY turns from being played by continually posting polls with a stop order until they close.

So now we need rules to prevent THIS situation.

You cannot come up with a rule for every situation - it's just not possible. Rather than all these rules and restritions, create rules that define a framework, and people work within that. I'm playing around with something (look for a PM) with that in mind.

Basically, define what the responsibilities of each position is, what information are they expected to post. Define what a legal instruction is - that has caused us more than a little headache. Define certain procedures (JR, PI, Polling, Elections, etc). Define the responsiblities of the DP. Define what should happen, and what can happen, at a given game play session.

That's it. You are detailing the expectations for a given position, and the process for handling people who fail to meet those expectations. You've nailed down what a legal instruction is, and thus what it is not.

By setting the expectations of everyone, you hopefully get away from the "but we've always done it this way!" garbage and the "oh, that's just something we do" that confuses new players. We really, really need to start DG4 fresh, with NO references allowed to previous games. Learn from them, yes. Repeat them, no.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by donsig


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.

I would like to point out that many people who were not there at the chat did not support your actions in that incident.

That being said, I would also prefer that new laws were enacted to ensure that leaders do what the people say, as represented in the chat as well as the forums (perhaps a certain number of people in the chat can force a decision to be taken to the forums...I don't want the chat to have too much power but I think we need to force the DP to take certain important decisions and discussions to the forums).

 

[DaveShack]

Donsig,

You have a perfectly valid point that many of our difficulties this game have been caused by a ruleset which is far too vague. I believe that we are approaching the problem from two different directions, and that both changes need to be made for DG4.

I would like to join forces on the subject of a better-defined ruleset of the type you have been asking for, and have received the PM that Ravensfire alluded to in his post on the same subject. If you would like to contribute an outline format list of rules that are needed, I would very much like to see it.

This thread is aimed at the other end of the spectrum. In RL I am a designer of disaster recovery systems, and so naturally am drawn to discussions of how to recover from a disaster situation in the game. Thinking in those terms, the approach taken is to think about the worst things which can happen, and then devise either countermeasures to prevent the event, or a recovery plan to pick up the pieces.

Ravensfire,

I received your PMs and am impressed! I think it might be a little too long, but will now take some time to fully digest it and let you know. I think we need considerably more in the rules than DG3 had, but don't want to end up with too many rules because then it becomes too easy to run afoul of them and give an opening for malcontents to start a PI-fest.

We need to leave wiggle room so we don't end up with people going ballistic over an unescorted settler, or failure to handle a wonder cascade correctly, or overlooking a build queue, or any number of other things that can go wrong in real play. I hate it when my fingers aren't centered on the numeric keypad and a unit goes the wrong way...

Many thanks to all who have contributed! Is it time yet to call for a DG4 constitutional convention?

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

I think it is

 

[donsig]

I think part of the problem is that the system we set up for DG3 was never used. Since there is work being done on a comprehensive ruleset for DG4 I would like to remind everyone how the rule set was supposed to work in DG3. When we drafted the DG3 constiution we purposefully made it vague and subject to interpretation. We knew we would need more rules as the game progressed. The idea was that the constitution would remian rather fixed (i.e., very difficult to amend) while we would construct other rules as we went along. These rules were supposed to always be within the constitutional framework but they were supposed to be easier to make and change than the constitution.

For some reason, we never got around to making up rules as we found need for them. Part of the reason for that is that initial efforts were always directed at changing the constitution itself rather than just making a specifi rule to cover what needed covering. Another part was the desire to make a complete comprehensive rule set once and for all - rather than just making one rule to cover one specific problem.

 

[DaveShack]

One of the mistakes we made for DG3 was requiring a supermajority to pass a law. We need to go back to a simple majority to make new rules, and then there will not be so much frustration when a minority can hold things up.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by DaveShack
One of the mistakes we made for DG3 was requiring a supermajority to pass a law. We need to go back to a simple majority to make new rules, and then there will not be so much frustration when a minority can hold things up.

That all depends on what you mean by rules. Your reply seems to imply that a rule is a rule is a rule. In DG3 there is the constitution and then there are supposed to be laws. The former is supposed to be general but difficult to change whereas the latter is supposed to be specific and not so difficult to change.

Now I must admit I'm not up to speed on current DG3 *rules* but my understanding is that it section F of the constitution defines what it takes to amend the constitution:

The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the Constitution. A 2/3 majority of the Senate shall be required to ratify said amendment.

The constitution was purposefully silent on what it would take to pass a law. We were supposed to figure that out during the game.

I do see a Code of Laws now in place. Unfortunately it deals mostly with the dreaded public investigations. However, section B does detail what it takes to amend the code of laws. A supermajority is one method but not the only one so I'm not ready to agree with DaveShack that there has been a mistake here. I don't have time to look at the numbers right now but it would be interesting to see how many votes it would take to pass a constitutional amendment versus how many votes it would take to amend the code of laws using the two different options available. Anyone care to post these numbers?

 

[DaveShack]

The judiciary ruled that passing a new law is a CoL amendment, requiring 2/3 citizen approval, or majority citizen approval and 2/3 senate approval. IIRC, the only law which passed after that was the PI procedure...

 

[Bootstoots]

It takes a majority of the citizens voting in the amendment poll and a majority of the senate or a 2/3 majority of the citizens to pass a CoL procedure, with a quorum of 1/3 of the people voting in the most active recent election. Therefore a quorum of 10 votes is required to pass a new law (30 votes in last Presidential election), and it requires a 2/3 majority of them or a majority of voters plus 3 of 5 Governors approving it.

 

[donsig]

Here's your law:

B. Code of Laws Amendments
1. Amendments to the Code of Laws must receive the vote of a plurality of the citizenry that choose to vote and the vote of a majority of the full Senate before they take effect. The quorum for a citizen poll is 1/3 of the citizens who voted in the most active poll in the most recent full elections.
a. If the number of votes divided by 3 is a decimal, it is rounded up if the decimal is above .5 and down if it is .5 or smaller.
2. A Code of Laws amendment may also pass by receiving superplurality (double the votes for Yes than in any other option) support by the citizenry. If this happens, the Senate poll is skipped and the amendment goes into
effect immediately.
3. A CoL amendment citizen poll must be open for at least 48 hours for the amendment to take effect.

So, if the quorum is 10 as bootstoots says, then 8 citizens can band together to force a law through without Senate consent. Are you all seriously telling me that you want to make rulemaking easier than that?

Even using option one the vote could go 4-3-3 (yes-no-abstain) then add 3 of 5 governors to pass a law. I realize that it is possible to get more votes than the quorum but you don't even need a majority of those voting to pass a law!

If you had three governors sticking together all they would need to do is rustle up 3 or four votes each and they could pass any rule they wanted!

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

Should this law:
2. A Code of Laws amendment may also pass by receiving superplurality (double the votes for Yes than in any other option) support by the citizenry. If this happens, the Senate poll is skipped and the amendment goes into
effect immediately.

say this instead?

2. A Code of Laws amendment must pass a majority vote by both the congress and the senate. Only then can a amendment be enacted.