Nobody's Constitution

[DaveShack]

We can't remove the will of the people thing. Without a requirement for discussion & polling, the rest of the people who are not elected may leave, never to return. This is the lesson of DG6 -- take away the things that people perceive to be fun, and they will just find something else which is more fun.

It's a mindset problem, not a law problem. We had citizens who would say nothing on a topic, and then complain if there wasn't a poll or the poll was not open for enough days. We had leaders who got afraid of the people, who polled everything.

DG6 was supposed to be about leaders discussing and polling big issues, and then implementing them without troubling the people about the low-level details. What you need is for the people to know they are in charge, but still allow the leaders powers over the details.

Here's what we need in terms of a decision tree:

1. Laws enacted by the people by a majority vote
2. Polls which supercede laws by a vote of more than 60%
3. Polls for areas in which there is no in-game law, simle majority or largest vote count, as specified by person posting the poll
4. Results of discussiosn where there is clear support for an idea
5. Leader's perogative

To put a bit more detail behind this idea.

1. Any citizen can take the initiative to start debate on a law, send the law through judicial review, and post a poll regarding its ratification. Laws must state how long they last, in in-game terms. The maximum duration a law may stay in force without being re-ratified is {insert value here}.
2. A law may be repealed or amended ahead of its built-in sunset date by a 60% vote. Any citizen may start an initiative to amend or repeal a law by holding debate and sending it for Judicial Review approval.
3. Any citizen may request an opinion poll on a decision where it is reasonable to believe that public support for / against the decision is divided. A leader may also voluntarily poll any decision. On citizen request, the leader responsible for the decision shall post the requested poll. Concurrently, if the leader believes the poll request is frivolous, a Judicial Review may be started. If the Judiciary rules that a poll should not be needed, then the results of the poll may be ignored. The Judiciary may rule a poll is invalid because public opinion is strongly against the poll and the poll is designed to delay play unnecessarily, or if the poll would have the effect of introducing an irreconcilable difference between this decision and some other decision. OK I know this is getting a bit wordy -- the bottom line is there had better be a good reason for forcing a poll, and the court may throw it out if there is no good reason.
4. Any citizen may request a decision be discussed. A leader may voluntarily hold a discussion on any subject.
5. In the absense of citizen input on a subject, the leader has the power and responsibility to make a timely decision on that subject.

Now the question for the "get rid of the WOTP" movement -- does this fix the problem you are seeing with over-polling? I'm fine with tossing out the dirty bathwater, as long as the baby isn't tossed with it.

 

[Octavian X]

As a quick note, if we do repoll the constitution, we probably should go ahead and stick in that CoL...

And, to respond to Dave, that process you've just outlined strikes me as a litigious way of doing things. Rather than allowing leaders to strike out and attempt to find that balance of their own initiative and citizen input that system would enforce a certain conformity on the entire decision-making process, which I'm almost certain could be coordinated by a single person rather than five of them, as I think it's safe to assume the people have one will, rather than a will that is dependant on who decides to show up to the discussion table.

The will of the people would still be involved, to the extent the leader wanted their opinions. Of course, if the leader screws up, he has pay at the ballot box - as it is, it probably is illegal to state a personal agenda during an election. We could introduce new mechanisms, of course, to check leaders if we removed that all-powerful Will - a recall mechanism to allow removal of officials without a CC for the simple reason that they don't like him (see Gray Davis), and another that allows regular citizens to create binding polls (given a certain (super)majority and quorum), so if a citizen really felt like some decision should be made, he'd have an oppertunity to do it without having to deal with the court, a body which can be daunting.

Granted, I don't mind a little order to some things, but it can go too far. A leader can be stifiled and exhausted by double and triple checking before excercising any initiative, and this simply isn't healthy. Let's go ahead and remove those barrriers, add a few checks and balances to replace them, and allow our leaders to actually lead.

 

[DaveShack]

A recall procedure might be sufficient check on a leader's hypothetical ability to run rampant over public opinion. I'm no fan of extraneous judicial action, it's just the only thing we've had support for in the past. The recall idea keeps getting shot down because certain insecure people are worried that they would win an election only to be subjected to constant recall attempts.

What I'm really worried about is Joe Citizen feeling detached from the game if we allow leaders to just go silent on issues of the day, and post instructions without doing anything else. Sure, such a leader is not going to win the next election and may even get recalled. Unfortunately it looks like once someone gets ignored too much around here, they're history.

 

[greekguy]

The code of laws black_hole posted was great. We should use that. now about WOTP. i agree with you DS. leaders poll and discuss big decisions, while leave people alone for little details. I don't want to eliminate WOTP, i just want it to be less prominent.

 

[Nobody]

i like the code of laws that black hole just posted

 

[Octavian X]

That's the problem, isn't it - we either lose citizen interest by letting have leaders have free reign, or lose the ability to find people to fill those leadership positions because they become too tedious.

Unless I'm missing some sort of way to balance this out, I think that removing the absolute supremacy of the will of the people is well-balanced by the recall mechanism. For example, in all my time at the Apolyton C3CISDG, despite the presence of a mechanism the recall a leader, it has never been used (especally against myself ). And, if we're concerned about abuse, we could easily require that x number of citizens all demand a recall vote before one takes place, to prevent them for recurring 'constantly.'

Basically, I'm betting that making these changes will lead to a more dynamic leadership, which consequently leads to a citizenry more involved in the operations of the game.

 

[ravensfire]

An alternative (CoL strongly needed with this, but posting just the Con for now. Details for several sections here are intended to be in the CoL).

We, the people of CIV_NAME, in order to create an atmosphere of friendship, cooperation, and pride, establish this Constitution of our beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.

Article A. Citizenship
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to seek to redress grievances and the right to vote.

Article B. Laws of the CIV_NAME
Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles.

Further, these rules may not contradict the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities that were built by CIV_NAME may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be captured. All other cities must be razed immediately.

Article D. Government Structure
The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Article E. The Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the People. It is headed by the President. The President is responsible for all National efforts, including control of the slider and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over workers or use of gold.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for all matters involving treaties with foreign nations and all espionage activities. This includes Trade Embargoes, Military Alliances and the use of Spies to acquire technologies.

The Minister of Defense is responsible for the actions of all Military units.

The Minister of Trade and Technology is responsible for all trade initiatives and research goals.

Article F. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch is formed of the House of the People and a Senate of Governors.

The House is made up of all citizens, and is responsible for the creation of new laws and Amendments. The House will present all such proposal to the Judiciary for review.

The Senate is made up of the 6 Governors, and is responsible for the well-being of the cities of CIV_NAME. Each of the 5 native cities will have its own Governor, and all captured cities will be controlled by the COOL_GOVERNOR_NAME. Each Governor is responsible for the care, management, and use of cities they control.

Article G. Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner.

The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as council to an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Article H Elections
The Executive Branch positions, Governorships and the Judiciary positions are all elected positions with a fixed term of one month.

Article I. Multiple Offices
No person shall hold multiple elected positions simultaneously, nor have more than one accepted nomination at the commencement of the general election.

Article J. Will of the People
Elected Officials must plan and act according to the Will of the People.

Article K. Recall of Elected Officials
Citizens may request a Recall of an elected official at any time.

Article L. Game Sessions
All irreversible game actions must progress during a game session, while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline. During each session, the designated player must provide a log of their actions in sufficient detail to replicate their actions.

A Game Session Instruction Thread must be created at least 3 days before the chat by the Designated Player for that session. A special session to accomplish a specific, short goal may by held by the President if there is significant public support. These special sessions

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. However, officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are clearly noted.

Article M. Playing the Save
Commission of any game action, by any person other than the Designated Player while carrying out their duties, that is not instantly reversible without reloading the save is strictly forbidden.

Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must be immediately closed without saving.

Article N. Census, and Amending the Constitution
The Census is defined as the average number of votes cast, dropped fractions, in each of the contested elections in the most recent general election

Amendments to the Constitution must pass Judicial Review. If accepted, the Judiciary will post the poll. This poll will be open for 4 days, state the new text and the current text. To pass, an amendment must have a 67% majority of positive votes, ignoring Abstain, and have a total number of votes greater than 2/3 of the census, dropping fractions.

Amendments must be posted as a Proposed Poll in the discussion thread for at least 24 hours prior to submission to the Judiciary.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Thanks, we need input, badly!

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities that were built by CIV_NAME may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be captured. All other cities must be razed immediately.

I agree that this is what we're agreeing to, but don't think it should be in the Constitution. CoL maybe...

Article E. The Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the People. It is headed by the President. The President is responsible for all National efforts, including control of the slider and resolving disputes between leaders, such as over workers or use of gold.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for all matters involving treaties with foreign nations and all espionage activities. This includes Trade Embargoes, Military Alliances and the use of Spies to acquire technologies.

The Minister of Defense is responsible for the actions of all Military units.

The Minister of Trade and Technology is responsible for all trade initiatives and research goals.

Where are culture and domestic, in particular where do we settle the 5 cities? Also where are government switches, wonders, and mobilization?

Article F. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch is formed of the House of the People and a Senate of Governors.

The House is made up of all citizens, and is responsible for the creation of new laws and Amendments. The House will present all such proposal to the Judiciary for review.

The Senate is made up of the 6 Governors, and is responsible for the well-being of the cities of CIV_NAME. Each of the 5 native cities will have its own Governor, and all captured cities will be controlled by the COOL_GOVERNOR_NAME. Each Governor is responsible for the care, management, and use of cities they control.

Does the Senate have any responsibilites as a group? It seems not, in which case why not just say there are 6 Governors?

Article K. Recall of Elected Officials
Citizens may request a Recall of an elected official at any time.

Good, someone is finally going to try to get this included.

Article L. Game Sessions
All irreversible game actions must progress during a game session, while reversible game actions (i.e. build queues) that adhere to legal instructions can be prepared offline. During each session, the designated player must provide a log of their actions in sufficient detail to replicate their actions.

A Game Session Instruction Thread must be created at least 3 days before the chat by the Designated Player for that session. A special session to accomplish a specific, short goal may by held by the President if there is significant public support. These special sessions

Text missing here?

All official instructions must be posted in the current game session instruction thread. Instructions must be clear and defined. Officials must post their instructions at least one hour before the scheduled start of the game session. However, officials may make changes to their instructions up to an hour before the chat, so long as those changes are clearly noted.

This level of detail is not in accordance with the rest of the proposal. On reading the first few articles I thought details would be in the CoL, which sounds like a better idea to me. Let's move these specifics to the CoL, please.

Article N. Census, and Amending the Constitution
The Census is defined as the average number of votes cast, dropped fractions, in each of the contested elections in the most recent general election

Amendments to the Constitution must pass Judicial Review. If accepted, the Judiciary will post the poll. This poll will be open for 4 days, state the new text and the current text. To pass, an amendment must have a 67% majority of positive votes, ignoring Abstain, and have a total number of votes greater than 2/3 of the census, dropping fractions.

No, this makes amendments far too hard. The system we had in DG6 was perfect -- 66% approval, OR simple majority with 60% of the census voting. This article is a deal breaker for me. :thumbdown:

 

[ravensfire]

I agree that this is what we're agreeing to, but don't think it should be in the Constitution. CoL maybe...

Nope - gotta be in here. The Constitution is the basic structure - where the core ideas and concepts should be. Things are not supposed to be easy to change! The 5BC is a core part of this DG - it absolutely belongs here.

Where are culture and domestic, in particular where do we settle the 5 cities? Also where are government switches, wonders, and mobilization?

Part of that is in the CoL - Governors lead discussions on where their city gets founded. The first 2 -3 cycles we'll have numbers next to the unsettled governors to detail priority.

Gov. Switches, wonders and mobilization are national efforts, and are covered by the President. Also, note the "catch-all" phrase there - in this ruleset, if something gets missed, we don't HAVE to figure out who gets it - it goes to the President. They can then delegate if they want.

Does the Senate have any responsibilites as a group? It seems not, in which case why not just say there are 6 Governors?

Just giving them a name - nothing special.

Good, someone is finally going to try to get this included.

The details of the recall process are in the CoL. Again, the Constitution contains the basics and the most critical details.

Text missing here?

Umm, yeah. Just a bit. Should be "These special sessions do not count as regular game sessions."

This level of detail is not in accordance with the rest of the proposal. On reading the first few articles I thought details would be in the CoL, which sounds like a better idea to me. Let's move these specifics to the CoL, please.

The details DO belong in the CoL - that was a change from my first draft, and missed this section.

No, this makes amendments far too hard. The system we had in DG6 was perfect -- 66% approval, OR simple majority with 60% of the census voting. This article is a deal breaker for me. :thumbdown:

Very, very leery about that. The Constitution SHOULD be hard to change. The CoL is where the details are. If you are changing a core concept, a core rule, there should be very strong support for it. I can handle lowering the quorum level, but if you can't convince 2/3 of the active voters that a particular change is good, you shouldn't be making that change.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Should we move the rule discussion and DG7 related materials to the new DG7 forum that just opened up?

 

[greekguy]

That's a pretty good constitution ravensfire, but you gave the president (DP) way too much. Only 3 positions besides DP!?! Make a Domestic Minister to go with that. They will control: sliders, gov. switchs, mobilization, wonders and culture.

 

[ravensfire]

That's a pretty good constitution ravensfire, but you gave the president (DP) way too much. Only 3 positions besides DP!?! Make a Domestic Minister to go with that. They will control: sliders, gov. switchs, mobilization, wonders and culture.

But why? Why not have the President do that?

The focus is on the Governors (which you forgot about) - not the national leaders.

Also, there is still one part that's not in there - the DP pool. Yup - introducing it in a proposal. Basically, there is a pool of citizens, each term, to be the DP for a session. Each DP determines exactly when their session will be played, within a framework.

To get into that pool, citizens post in a thread during the nomination cycle. A poll will go up, listing all citizens that posted, multi-choice format. If they get X number of votes (X to be determined), they go in the pool. They are ordered by number of votes, with those that didn't DP last term before all that did DP last term.

The President is there to focus on the national projects and referee. Finally, citizens that don't have the time to be the DP, can serve as President. Likewise, those that want to play the save, but don't want to be President can do so.

Total number of elected positions: 13 NOT 3
-- National: 4 (Pres, Military, Trade/Tech, FA)
-- Governor: 6 (5 cities + 1 captured cities)
-- Judiciary 3

Total number Deputies: 10

-- Ravensfire

 

[greekguy]

I know there would be more than 3 positons, i was commenting on the 3 nationwide positions, as governors are for cities.

 

[ravensfire]

I know there would be more than 3 positons, i was commenting on the 3 nationwide positions, as governors are for cities.

Please then, clarify that point when you make it. Governors ARE elected positions, after all, not just some lackey job we give to people that can't handle real tasks.

The focus on this type of a game should be on the cities, NOT on the national government. Look at the Domestic position you created. To do it, you had to move just about everything from the President over. Oh yes. And culture. That's needed exactly why? Why don't you think that the Governor's can't handle that?

-- Ravensfire

 

[greekguy]

The focus on this type of a game should be on the cities, NOT on the national government. Look at the Domestic position you created. To do it, you had to move just about everything from the President over. Oh yes. And culture. That's needed exactly why? Why don't you think that the Governor's can't handle that?

That stuff should go to a Domestic Minister because the President (DP) should have their hands full playing the game. About the culture thing: they wouldn't be saying temple here, library there. They'd be examining overall culture, comparing it too other nations, and considering if building wonders are worth it.

 

[DaveShack]

Very, very leery about that. The Constitution SHOULD be hard to change. The CoL is where the details are. If you are changing a core concept, a core rule, there should be very strong support for it. I can handle lowering the quorum level, but if you can't convince 2/3 of the active voters that a particular change is good, you shouldn't be making that change.

What about a change which is critically necessary but doesn't have overwhelming enough support to get 2/3? Take a hypothetical situation that the game will end if the change isn't made, and we get 60% support with 100% voting. For example take the end of DG6, and the consitutional amendment is that we can't win the game by domination. What if 6 people voted in favor of the amendment to stick with culture and 4 voted no for domination. Should we end the game in domination because those 4 people are unwilling to change their minds? Under the DG6 rules, the amendment would pass, under your rules it would not.

Take the 5BC case -- what if we get a few hundred turns in, and some runaway AI has barely twice our culture with only a couple of turnchats remaining before they exceed the culture limit. We can stave off defeat by rushing settlers and then rushing culture fast enough to gain culture at a higher rate. Should we allow 4 diehards to force us to lose when there are 6 who want to win a different way? Sure, this is a very remote possibility, but it is possible, and I don't want to be in the majority and held hostage this way.

 

[ravensfire]

What about a change which is critically necessary but doesn't have overwhelming enough support to get 2/3? Take a hypothetical situation that the game will end if the change isn't made, and we get 60% support with 100% voting. For example take the end of DG6, and the consitutional amendment is that we can't win the game by domination. What if 6 people voted in favor of the amendment to stick with culture and 4 voted no for domination. Should we end the game in domination because those 4 people are unwilling to change their minds? Under the DG6 rules, the amendment would pass, under your rules it would not.

Take the 5BC case -- what if we get a few hundred turns in, and some runaway AI has barely twice our culture with only a couple of turnchats remaining before they exceed the culture limit. We can stave off defeat by rushing settlers and then rushing culture fast enough to gain culture at a higher rate. Should we allow 4 diehards to force us to lose when there are 6 who want to win a different way? Sure, this is a very remote possibility, but it is possible, and I don't want to be in the majority and held hostage this way.

Let's look at that hypothetical situation. Basically, the scenario is we're about to lose the game. The only way we can win the game, is to change how we're playing it. Basically, we cheat. DG6, we lost in my book.

How could we have handled it better? First, we're at the end-game. There was no reason to stay at 10 turn game sessions. We easily could have shifted to 15, 20 or more. Likewise, shifting to more frequent sessions would also have sped things up a bit. Easy, simple changes. And both of those would be in my CoL.

DS - the Constitution is there to be a strong, static framework. I've tried to keep things open and flexible where they should be. Some things aren't - those are supposed to be.

Put the the basics in the Constitution. Keep everything else out.

Alas, this entire discussion is probably moot. In less than a day, we'll have the least complete Constitution we've had to start a DG with. And that's impressive considering our history.

-- Ravensfire

 

[zyxy]

My 2 pennies:

Let's look at that hypothetical situation. Basically, the scenario is we're about to lose the game. The only way we can win the game, is to change how we're playing it. Basically, we cheat. DG6, we lost in my book.

completely agree. If we want to play a variant, we stick to it. If we lose, we lose (and AI victories don't materialize out of thin air, you can see them coming from miles away). Variant rules should not be amendable at all, in my book.

I think ravensfire's constitution is pretty good. I would prefer fewer elected positions so that we get meaningful elections, but I don't really see how that could be done. Perhaps allow people to hold both a national executive and a governor position? The governor positions are not that important anyway.

Apart from that, I just have the same problems with this one as with any earlier framework. In order of appearance:

Article A: What is freedom of movement? Our last judiciary didn't seem to know...

Article E: responsibility comes with decision power. Decision power lies with the WotP, so officials cannot be responsible. They are at most responsible for initiating discussions and polls.
If you make a list, it better be complete, so to the Minister of FA section, please add "MPP's, ROP's, use of embassies and spies, declarations of war, peace negotiations". Did I miss any?

Article G: depending on how this is worked out, we will once again have justices who also serve as parties in a conflict. How can the public defender ever vote "guilty" in a CC? (I would get rid of CC's btw).

Article J: what is the Will of the People? Something like: the Will of the People is the aggregate (?) wish of the citizens of our country. It is determined by unanimity in a completed discussion, or by the majority vote in a poll. "completed discussion" and "poll" perhaps need to be qualified somewhere.

Article K: obviously needs some safeguards against abuse. Apart from that, a great way to retire inactive or runaway officials.

Article M: I don't like the exception.

Alas, this entire discussion is probably moot. In less than a day, we'll have the least complete Constitution we've had to start a DG with. And that's impressive considering our history.

Is there any constitution in play yet? EDIT: nvm, saw the poll.

 

[Provolution]

I also think some supported the constitution in protest to the legal rectonomy show that takes place to every single demogame. THe laws and enforcement are generally unfair, ineffective, have double standards and steal focus, so no need to cultivate that part of the Demogame. Also, some special people got legal immunity, so no need to glorify the constitution.

 

[greekguy]

Alas, this entire discussion is probably moot. In less than a day, we'll have the least complete Constitution we've had to start a DG with. And that's impressive considering our history.

what are you talking about? the poll stands right now at a 10-10 tie. last time i checked, polls have to have a majority to pass and i doubt many more people will vote.

I think if we work with your consitution, and try to get something everyone will sort of like, we can get this to workout just fine.