New CoL/Constitution

Octavian X

is not a pipe.
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
5,428
Location
deceiving people with images
We need to add to/redraft our ruling documents. The following is a list of changes that, IMHO, need to be made.

-Define leadership positions Clearly define what each executive position is responsible for.

-Consolidate power Combine responsibilities where possible. Get people to do good jobs to force higher quality of work people do. Make people actually work for those elections.

-Define certain procedures Make specific mention of deputies, absentee laws, and Investigation procedure.

Please participate in this discussion.
 
we should also get appointments in there as well so we dont hold mid election nominations and elections, personally thats 4 days wasted when a province has been formed. I definately agree we need to define the leadership positions extensively since some seems to seriously lack in posting instructions and discussions.

Also a Chain of Command / Chain of Cummincation must be established when leaders fail to do their job, or resign. I eneded up being Domestic Leader for 5 days before i found out in the judicial thread (term2). i may have more but for now very sleepy...
 
Truthfully, I can see making the Constitution a little more vague, yet making the CoL and/or the CoS quite detailed. The current Constitution is good for the purpose it was supposed to cover, but is not detailed enough to give us the guidance we seek. Therefore, I believe it should return to its overview status and let the CoL and/or the CoS handle the details.
 
A lot of sense has been talked in this thread so far.
As a first step why not concentrate on the things that have been addressed already.
Proper chain of command
Contingencies for absenteeism/resignation
proper Judicial procedures.

Tackling any of the above would seriously improve the situation
 
My first suggestion would be that we don't bother adding a CoS underneath the CoL. The difference between the two always felt very artificial in the last game and ended up adding unnecessary complexity to the ruleset in my opinion. I do heartily agree that we could do with some kind of CoL, but preferably not too extensive though.

All the suggestions above seem eminently sensible, including the idea of removing some of the detail from the Const and relocating it to the the new CoL. The description of the Judiciary would be a prime candidate for migration, for starters.

I would also like to reinstate the "council override" vote from our previous ruleset, which allowed the president to propose overturning a given gameplay instruction and then do so if the proposal received the approval of the majority of the six department leaders. This would prevent individual leaders playing at gesture politics with their instructions as well as making it possible to legally clobber dubious game-critical instructions that obviously have not been discussed in the fora.
 
Rough Chain of Command (In my opinion):
President
Vice President
Military Leader
Domestic Leader
Foriegn Affairs
Science
Trade
Culture

after that, It could follow with the governers by seniority (The oldest first). The Judiciary needs to be kept out of the CoC. It is against the spirit and nature of the judiciary to participate in game. Obviously, any form of deputy or successor takes the place of an absent leader if the position has been made.
Again, this is just a rough list and it can easily be changed.
 
The military before Domestic and Foreign Affairs?

I think they should go before the military.

I think it should be in this order.

Prez
VP
Domestic
Foreign
Military
Science
Trade
Culture
govs- senoirity
 
How about this?
President
VP
Domestic
Military
FA
Science
Culture
Trade
CJ
PD
JA
Departmental deputies - same as above
Governors - seniority

With the departments, that is the general order of which leader carries the larger burden.

With a caveat - If we decide to mobilize the economy to War-Time (in game or just in the forums), the military leader would go to the top, and be responsible for playing the game. This assumes that military knows a bit more about troop manuvers in game than the President

Lastly, one of my points was that we should consolidate those top positions, to force people to do a better job if they want to be elected at all. I feel that culture, trade, and perhaps science can be dropped. Thoughts>
 
I don't believe we should be dropping Leader positions. Consolidating the required duties into fewer positions may not be helpful to the people who are elected. I don't see how that can force them to do a better job. I think we should keep a Leader for every Leader in the actual Civ3 game. If they suck at their job, we can always replace them later.
 
I was going to say don't drop science, but now I see where you are going with it. Most science work is done domestically (One can say by our own beakers). That could be covered by the Domestic Department. Traded science can be handled by the Foreign Affairs Department. Of course all trades would be handled that way, so there goes the Trade Department. Culture can be covered by the Domestic Department as well. This gets rid of things that could be covered by more than one department.

So in the end (after going with Oct), I came up with these roles.

Domestic: handles 'domestic science', workers, settlers, oversees governors, handles wonders, distributes the taxes/ income

Foreign Affairs: handles all trades, alliances, mpps, demands/ threats, and treaties (This would also include the breaking of most of the said items)

Military: Handles unit movement (with the exception of workers/ settlers), and bring up war plans

Governors: Handles build queues within province borders, requests worker 'jobs' within province from Domestic Department

I am now awaiting some criticism and comments.:cool:
 
We still need someone to handle discussions and post polls regarding our research goals. We also need a science *guru* who will advocate a science research rate apart from the domestic leader who may not give a darn about science.

I have never been a fan of basing our leader's responsibilities around what shows up on the various Civ 3 advisor's screens. take the examples of the forbidden palace and great wonders. Who should be in charge of those? Traditionally they have been in the domestic advisor's sphere but why is that? Do the forbidden palace and great wonders show up on the F1 screen in Civ 3? Only if a city is currently building them! Why is the declaration of war or the making of peace an FA responsibility? simply because the Civ 3 foreign advisor screen shows who is at war? Because we can go to the F4 screen and click on Abe's face, talk to him and declare war? Well, from the F1 screen we can click on a city and change it's build queues. Does that mean the domestic advisor should set the build queues for all our cities? We decided long ago that the answer was no. We wanted governors so we could breakup the work load. this need to break up the work load is the biggest reason we should not reduce the number of leaders we have.
 
Still, frankly, there are too many cases where people get elected to offices they do nothing with. There have been multiple examples of the lower three positions (science, culture, and trade) not having their duties fulfilled.

If we reduced the number of positions, we could also encourage people to take a more active role. If you actually need to compete for a leadership role, we can increase participation and play the game better.
 
There are also cases of "lower department" leaders using that position as a means of rising to a higher level. :D

The point should be to involve more people in the government, to increase participation. Reducing the number of elected leaders would reduce participation, which is an incredibly bad thing to contemplate, especiallly now.

Also by keeping the number of leader positions as is, the workload is distributed somewhat more than it would be if positions were consolidated.
 
we should also remove freedom of speech from the constitution as cfc rules sepercede those of the demogames.

We should also limit the right to demand satisfaction as it seems we can now target our moderators for Public Investigation
 
i would advocate something like:
1) presidential department
2) domestic department
3) military department

presidential department also takes care of trade and foreign affairs
domestic of all local issues
military is including spying and takes over controll of many domestic issues during wartime.

EDIT:
this would also get the deputies more work, as a higher department workload needs them to actualy work.

for example:
the vice president could take care of the foreign affairs and trade things.
the domestic deputy could plan science things.
 
no the positions are just fine as they are, just not enough quailty leadership going on
 
Top Bottom