zyxy said:
Article A: What is freedom of movement? Our last judiciary didn't seem to know...
Nothing significant - it's to allows citizens to call themselves a resident of a particular city, and to prevent a mayor of a city from trying to restrict who could and could not reside there. Mostly RPG stuff.
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?
I'm going to disagree here, because I don't want to see leaders "at most" initiate discussions and polls. Leaders should be a filter for ideas - eliminating the useless and unsupported. Leaders should guide and focus discussions on the relevant issues and scope, to get a good understanding of what people want. Not everything needs to be polled, but everything should be available for discussion.
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).
That's something that's been discussed for quite some time. Likewise, imagine a PD that refused to defend someone because they thought they were guilt!
CC's are an imperfect solution to a unpleasant situation - how do you handle situations where one person accuses another of breaking the rules? The moderators really don't want to get involved. Also, one of the core aspects of any government simulation is the evaluation of claims of wrongdoing - justice.
The hope is that the citizens fulfilling the roles of JA and PD recognize that those are roles - they are there to present a viewpoint about the situation to the people. All polls in a CC are private - there is nothing that will prevent (nor should there be) a JA to vote innocent, or a PD to vote guilty.
If you can come up with a better manner of handling accusations, please, present it.
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.
Now that's rather good description of the WotP that I've seen. It is somewhat nebulous, because it has changed throughout different DG's. It's hard to define exactly what it is, because there are many situations, and you don't want to bog down the process. Do you want leaders to poll every little detail, You're going to find it hard to get good leaders. Do you want leaders to poll only vague concepts, you'll find people complaining about not being involved.
I don't have a good answer, because I don't think there is a definitive answer. To paraphrase, I don't know what WotP is, but I know it when I see it.
Article K: obviously needs some safeguards against abuse. Apart from that, a great way to retire inactive or runaway officials.
That's in the CoL on this.
Article M: I don't like the exception.
That's an exception that's been there for a while. It would make the game somewhat interesting to remove it, pushing discussions not about renegotiate for X gold, but about should we renegotiate with Y.
-- Ravensfire