Proposed constitution for DG2

[Bertie]

I have nothing against removing the judiciary from the constitution though I would advise against it. Someone will have to try to resolve conflicts between polls, officials, citizens, etc. I think it's much better to have a body anchored in the constitution (and thus on a more solid foundation) than whatever is created using the build as we go approach.

I guess I hope that we citizens will be able to resolve any conflicts that arise early in the game before we’ve formed new offices (including the Judiciary). One of the reasons why I like ravensfire’s idea for a single-person judiciary is that his plan would force some of the legal decisions back to the citizens. This is where some of them belong, IMO. (However, the 3-person judiciary is tried and true, and I'd be equally happy with that system.)

I would also caution everyone that build as we go rules does not necessarily mean we'll have a Code of Laws. (I certainly hope we can avoid such a monstrosity.) We will most likely wind up with a series of initiatives, the bookkeeping of which will be interesting to see.

My impression, perhaps incorrect, is you’ve long held an antagonism against the Code of Laws, and it's never been clear to me why. (Remember, I’ve not been much involved in the DG so some of the legendary tussles that occurred in the past seem more like myth than reality to me.) Isn’t the COL fundamentally a means of organizing all the lower laws that the citizens form? As you say, in this game we’ll wind up with a series of initiatives – laws – and for bookkeeping purposes need to organize them in some manner. Isn’t that really all that the COL is? I feel that I'm missing something obvious here, but I don't understand what it is.

 

[DaveShack]

In the beginning (well, in an earlier DG) there were 3 bodies of law -- the Constitution, the Code of Laws, and the Code of Standards, each becoming more detailed than the last.

The impression that I get is that when there were really detailed laws, it was possible to get "sued" for something as simple as posting your official thead in Verdana font when others used Times Roman.

Well, not that bad, but we've gone through cycles of very detailed vs. very vague. The objection is to a "formal" CoL, where a less detailed rule will do.

At least that's how I interpret it.

 

[Chieftess]

The impression that I get is that when there were really detailed laws, it was possible to get "sued" for something as simple as posting your official thead in Verdana font when others used Times Roman.

That's just the thing I think makes the demogame "unfun". Users who just want to check things out, or even try and run for an office might be scared away by having to memorize so many rules. For a game that normally lasts 4-5 months (with 2 exceptions - lesson, NEVER do huge maps on high difficulty levels or marathon mode. ), that might not even be worth it -- by the time they're even comfortable with the rules, the game's just about over. Then everyone starts off on a 3 month long ruleset discussion binge.

It might look fancy to some to have an "officially complex way of doing things" (on documents that would take months to prepare in of itself in the real world), but in a forum game that only lasts 4-5 months, I think it's asking a bit much.

 

[donsig]

My impression, perhaps incorrect, is you’ve long held an antagonism against the Code of Laws, and it's never been clear to me why. (Remember, I’ve not been much involved in the DG so some of the legendary tussles that occurred in the past seem more like myth than reality to me.) Isn’t the COL fundamentally a means of organizing all the lower laws that the citizens form? As you say, in this game we’ll wind up with a series of initiatives – laws – and for bookkeeping purposes need to organize them in some manner. Isn’t that really all that the COL is? I feel that I'm missing something obvious here, but I don't understand what it is.

You are correct in both your impression about my antagonism towards the CoL and the fact that the bookkeeping we will need will essentially be a CoL. I have nothing against using the CoL as a bookkeeping system for an evolving CoL. My antagonism towards the traditional DG CoL is that it has never been an evolving document. The past has seen us (time and time again) try to write a full set of DG rules before we even play the game. Most of the time there is pressure to start play before we have a well thought out CoL. (For those of you not paying attention that is happening again.) Then, once the flaws of the hurried CoL are evident we never fix them because few people want to actually write up rules. Trying to make a comprehensive set of rules is not only too difficult it assumes we have the same amount (and same type) of things to do throughout the game. That's not true. Since the game has opening, midgame and endgame phases, we need to be flexible in how we structure our collective decision making as the game enters a new phase.

So you see, I agree with Chieftess, that we should not start with a lot of rules. Maybe, just maybe, we'd end up focusing on the game instead of the CoL.

 

[DaveShack]

Umm, ratification poll please?

 

[Bertie]

DaveShack & Chieftess, thanks for the history lesson!

Donsig, thank you for explaining your distaste for the CoL (or whatever we decide to call it). What you say makes sense. I agree with you that circumstances evolve as the game progresses, and it’s difficult to write a comprehensive set of laws that’s useful and relevant both for the early game and the late game – and do it before we begin the game! It’s the flexibility that I most like about the build as you go approach. I continue to think it’d be better to create our judiciary as we go rather than write it into the Constitution, and for that reason may vote against your proposed constitution even though I otherwise like it very much. However, I’m still thinking about it.

Thanks for the conversation.