Nobody's Constitution

[ravensfire]

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.

Vote was 10-9 when I posted. As you noted, I doubted many more would vote.

I was, for now, mistaken. I'm pleased about that.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

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

 

[DaveShack]

Also, some special people got legal immunity, so no need to glorify the constitution.

I'm torn between reporting this as a troll or asking what you're talking about. Maybe you should respond by PM. Also you should take this as a suggestion to leave baseless allegations out of it, or just leave.

 

[Strider]

Okay, I haven't seen much here that is *really* worth keeping. So here I go:

[Removed and moved elsewhere]

It's about lunch time, so I'm going to go eat. I do plan on including a Code of Laws, and possibly a Code of Standards. These will include most of the things missing above. I also think I forgot acouple of duties for the Council of Culture, I'll edit it with the ones I forgot later.

Edit (incomplete Code of Laws):

[Removed and moved elsewhere]

Will edit it more with Polling Standards, Freedom of Information, etc.

 

[zyxy]

... I don't want to see leaders "at most" initiate discussions and polls.

I think we agree on this - I just wanted to point out that IMO the logical consequence of making the WotP the overriding authority on everything is that officials will not be able to shape the policy of their department (or create a consistent policy at all, for that matter), and consequently cannot do much more than take some initiatives and hope for the best.
Here are a few ideas for a different balance between leaders and WotP:
1. Leaders are elected based on a policy, a set of ideas on how to run the office. A vote for the person means a vote for the policy. Leader is responsible for carrying out this policy. If the citizens at some moment vote against the policy the leader has the option to resign (or can "threaten" to do so before the vote).
2. To overturn a leader's decision, a 67% (or so) majority vote is needed.
3. We make a list of "unimportant game decisions" - everything not on the list is "important". To make important decisions, a leader first has to consult the people. Leaders may make unimportant decisions without prior consultation. Citizens can request a discussion/poll on these. The list of "unimportant decisions" should be amendable.

Items 1 and 2 will hopefully make elections more interesting, item 3 formalizes the idea of focussing discussion on the main issues.

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!

In RL, that happens all the time. If the PD is a good lawyer, then he should have no qualms defending a guilty client. The only (unpractical, as it involves too many people) solution I can see is to have a JA, a PD, and a number of judges. Under the current system, the accused cannot really confide in the PD and is better off seeking his own defender.
I don't know a good way to deal with CC's. Last game we had none I think, and I would say that is the best situation.

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.

As the WotP is the most important concept in the decision making process, there should be some idea on what it is, don't you think?

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.

I just don't like anything involving reloading - it's no big deal.

 

[Provolution]

I'm torn between reporting this as a troll or asking what you're talking about. Maybe you should respond by PM. Also you should take this as a suggestion to leave baseless allegations out of it, or just leave.

It is indeed baseful, but thin-skinned people over-reporting opinions preempts freedom of speech, but in fairness, this is part of the reason some left.
Nobody's constitution is telling, as I support this, as it is nobody's "baby" to make themselves look good, and other look bad. Nobody understood the DG, it is all about fun, and not about putting people down. I see some "veterans" only surface to squash "newbees" with their own legal "expertise" from past DG's, and be very insisting on us being 100 % submissive to their corrective desires, just to leave the game to rot when the game actually starts. We got way too many founding fathers and way to few citizens to populate our realms and provide meaningful gameplay. Please call me a fascist, but I prefer the moderatorsto provide a ruleset and administer the Judiciary, since these areas float into each other. Too many masters cause chaos.
And about founding fathers... I found DGV to be quite fun Term 1- Term IV, but collapsed after that.

I much prefer a moderator run forum and ruleset, and no more mickey mouse putsches by teens and other delinquents to overrule the DG legislation in small judicial posting and polling coups. Frankly put, I want moderators to handle rulesets, and the players to play through the games.
I have had enough veteran "guidance", and just want to play in tidy and orderly environments.

Thanks
P

 

[GenMarshall]

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

I agree on this part. There should be safeguards against the abuse of this system. If a person in the game deaply hates that particular person would use the recall as his weapon to make his or her life in the demogame missrable.

I do agree with Dave on "where is domestic". I beleve we should keep Domestic around for the pourpouse of selecting city spots, mobalization, slider control, and budgeting our funds. I dont mind that culture gets the cut but domestic should stay.

1. Leaders are elected based on a policy, a set of ideas on how to run the office. A vote for the person means a vote for the policy. Leader is responsible for carrying out this policy. If the citizens at some moment vote against the policy the leader has the option to resign (or can "threaten" to do so before the vote).

I disagree, I beleve that a leader should be elected based on how well he or she handles her job well and not because of policies.

Article E. The Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall be formed by the House and Mayors.

Section 1. The Mayors
A mayor is charged with the management and affairs of a single city. They are also charged with the defense and protection of there city.

Section 2. The House
The house is formed by the citizenry, and is charged with the formation and passing of laws.

Something pops into mind. Should there be an elected possition for speeker of the house?

 

[Strider]

The feeling is gone, and the circle is broken. Just like water under a burning bridge, heh? A million words, but nothing is spoken. If you don't know if you have found what you are looking for, then why post at all? So when you tell me what you tell me, I am suppose to listen and reaffirm sometype of empathy? Yeah right.

So are we going to discuss the constitutions, or there makers?

 

[ravensfire]

To try and minimize confusion from attempting to discuss 3(!) rulesets in one thread, I've created a new thread for my proposal.

It's incorporated some of the comments and suggestions posted thus far (and thanks, btw, for an excellent WotP definition, zyxy).

Link to thread for Ravensfire's proposal

We've now got three proposal - Nobody's, Ravensfire's and Strider's. Let's spend a few days developing them, poll the three of them, polish that and post it for ratification.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

We've now got three proposal - Nobody's, Ravensfire's and Strider's. Let's spend a few days developing them, poll the three of them, polish that and post it for ratification.

-- Ravensfire

Agreed, mine is posted here

Now I'm off to get some supper and to take a shower. Then I will be full and clean for the Paintball competition I have tonight, inwhich afterwards I get the satisfaction of taking another shower (and likely eating again).

 

[DaveShack]

Has this proposal been updated with any comments made during or after the vote? It might be a good idea to do a refresh.