Ratification of a Constitution

[RegentMan]

I don't want to wait until September 1. School's starting, and RegentMan has a lot of AP classes...

Besides, does anyone else want to wait 45 days for the next demogame?

 

[DaveShack]

If we leave any language about beginning of the month or length of term out of the constitution, then the CoL can fill in the details on when nominations go up, elections, etc. Nothing says we can't start on the 15th with a 2 week first term, or just start every term on the 15th. The only thing to keep in mind is that people need advance warning of when the term starts.

Anyway, if there are problems with this constitution proposal, let's head on over to the citizens forum and fix them. Dates were not the only reason to poll this, we had gone days in the discussion without meaningful comment.

 

[DaveShack]

Why do we only need a simple majority to pass this thing? Past games have required what their constitution stated...

Umm, not always. DG6 started with a 1 vote margin if I remember correctly, and I'm fairly certain we've never had a 2/3 majority on the initial ratification, at least not for every article. This got us into trouble in either DG4 or 5 (can't remember which offhand) because there were major rules missing but the amendment ratification was too difficult, so we spent a couple of terms fighting continuous JRs on the missing stuff.

 

[Black_Hole]

If we leave any language about beginning of the month or length of term out of the constitution, then the CoL can fill in the details on when nominations go up, elections, etc. Nothing says we can't start on the 15th with a 2 week first term, or just start every term on the 15th. The only thing to keep in mind is that people need advance warning of when the term starts.

Anyway, if there are problems with this constitution proposal, let's head on over to the citizens forum and fix them. Dates were not the only reason to poll this, we had gone days in the discussion without meaningful comment.

actually, all terms are 1 month, if we start on August 15th we have to end on Septemer 15th...

 

[Furiey]

Start Nominations on the same date each month and the term starts 7 days later, then there's no confusion with counting back from when the term starts to work out when Nominations should start and finish etc. If an extra week would be enough you could even start nominations on the 1st with the term starting on the 7th. Simple.

 

[Octavian X]

Or, we could still start the term on time while we're polling this thing. The basic roles and jobs have been laid out and I'm sure we could forge ahead with the implied definitions of the offices and general workings of things - we won't even need a foreign affairs department, for instance. I don't think there's any harm to asking people to play nicely along the spirit of the would-be laws for the first two weeks.

 

[Nobody]

Why do we only need a simple majority to pass this thing? Past games have required what their constitution stated...

No one is tasked with city building location for crying out loud!!!
Once the game starts someone will have to file a JR to ask who gets to decide where to build settlers... This will lose us 5 days, why not fix some stuff and add a CoL...

Unforunately I am going on vacation and will be leaving tomorrow, and finishing packing today...

Why didnt you bring it up in the thread. most of the jobs of the leaders i took stright from the old consitutions, and i asked people to find that faults (like lots did) but you didnt mention this.

 

[Black_Hole]

Why didnt you bring it up in the thread. most of the jobs of the leaders i took stright from the old consitutions, and i asked people to find that faults (like lots did) but you didnt mention this.

I am pretty darn sure that the other constitutions mention someone incharge of settling...
I shouldn't have to say: "Don't forget to give the settling responsiblity to the domestic advisor"

If this passes we can't settle a city until an amendment...

 

[DaveShack]

If this passes we can't settle a city until an amendment...

Not so -- there are two ways to settle with it written as it is. First, under aeons of precedent, the Prime Minister would be in charge of anything not specified. Second, the "not specifically prohibited" language means that if the constitution doesn't give a role to an owner, then anyone can take that role.

In practice we would probably operate by "gentleman's agreement" that Domestic would be responsible.

I'm feeling an urge to run for CJ just to try to keep foolishness from getting out of hand.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I am voting to ratify this Constitution, warts and all.

With only 13 people voting thus far, is the Constitution really a hotbutton issue anyway? Fix what you can on the fly and get this thing started.

 

[Provolution]

After the Mickey Mouse Constitution we had last DG, we could by principle ratify anything, even a constitution in Cartoon format.

So please ratify this excellent platform by Nobody and amend it later.

 

[Nobody]

Really the only issues are , Grama and what not, i knew i might stuff that up, so i left a part for this to be fixed (look in the amendment place) and then settler thing Big Woops. Someone post a law stright away and that will be solved,

 

[ravensfire]

Sorry, gotta vote against this.

I wish I had been able to post earlier on this, but didn't have the opportunity.

Reasons:

• Wording needs improvement in many, many sections. At a minimum, I would expect good english throughout.
• Too many leaders - we don't need that many in a 5BC game.
• Major duties left unmentioned.
• Elections not mentioned EXCEPT that the MAIN LEADER is elected. No such reference made to any other position.
• Mayors - elected or appointed. NO MENTION MADE. (see above, but especially noticeable here)
• ALL cities would have Mayors? Holy cow - we're gonna have HOW many officials?
• How to determine which cities do, and do not, have Mayors.
• 5BC format needs to be in the document. Without this, we're going to be repolling this every single election, and probably more often than that.
• No pool of Designated Players.]

That's after 5 minutes.

It's a decent start, but there are significant flaws to this. Citizens that want to stall, confuse or generally wreak havoc on the game would have a field day hammering this thing.

This won't need a few amendments or changes, it will need a near re-write.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Citizens that want to stall, confuse or generally wreak havoc on the game would have a field day hammering this thing.

Unfortunately they already are, by voting no.

 

[ravensfire]

Unfortunately they already are, by voting no.

DS,

This is not a good framework. It's a good start, but it should never have been polled in the first place. There are too many holes in this.

I'm distressed at the insinuation in your words. More than most, I want to see this work. This proposal will not help things. Have we not learned that trying to band-aid things after we start does not work?

Most people will not want to deal with the massive number of updates this is going to need. Good grief - it was polled 2 DAYS after the initial idea was posted! Is there any wonder issues are being found and pointed out?

Come on, DS. You know the problems we have had trying to rush something that wasn't finished with the idea of "we'll just fix it later". That's a poor way to do things. Had we taken a week or so to allow everyone to review this, most of these problems would have been found, and fixed.

Do you really think I would work to stall or delay this without a good reason? There are some significant flaws in this proposal. They WILL cause problems. We OUGHT to take the time to fix them now.

I urge all citizen to review this proposal, and the point pro and con. If you think this is a viable ruleset, vote YES. If you think this ruleset has flaws that should be fixed before we start, vote NO.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

A clarification: Just voting no, or voting no and listing things wrong without taking action to fix them is what I'm referring to.

OK, so we don't have people doing their best to shoot it down, I'm sorry I implied that. We just don't have anyone trying their best to make it happen either.

To refresh the time line (well, sequence of events anyway)

1. People were getting upset over the apparent lack of direction
2. Strider stepped forward to run the pre-game. I said at that time I don't have time to do the ruleset but am here as a consultant
3. 2 sets of "game style" polls fail to get a clear majority for either 5CC or Epic
4. A 3rd poll leans heavily towards something between 5CC and Epic
5. Strider drags his feet on accepting the results of the middle ground poll, and when several people (myself included) tell him he can't decide to ignore it he quits
6. I still don't have time for a ruleset
7. It sits for several days without anyone working on it
8. Nobody jumps in and saves the day with a draft, or at least tries to
9. We're voting now on something which had very little discussion because it sat there for a week while everyone was waiting for someone else to make the first move.

People have been voting no for 3 days. We have lists of things wrong in this poll thread but no efforts to edit Nobody's draft to incorporate any of the problems. It's not going to fix itself, and I still don't have time to do it.

We've already missed the date so might as well take all the time we need now...

 

[donsig]

This is way too long and detailed for a constitution.

Why are we doing this anyway? Is DGVI over?

 

[DaveShack]

This is way too long and detailed for a constitution.

Why are we doing this anyway? Is DGVI over?

Welcome back! It's kinda funny, we have many commenting that too many details are left out (but some of the same people want WOTP removed), now the other camp is heard from saying it's too detailed.

I'm guessing you missed that "victory chat" thing we had the 1st week of July.

 

[Fallensmith]

I love how you are all so mysteriously tied to specific dates, as if this was a company on the NYSE.

 

[DaveShack]

I love how you are all so mysteriously tied to specific dates, as if this was a company on the NYSE.

It is kinda sick to play a game on a schedule, isn't it. Guilty as charged...

We beat up one president for playing too fast, then another for playing too slow. We make a big deal about wanting the instruction thread opened 3 days in advance, and about leaders not changing their instructions in the final hour before a chat runs. Some are hung up on elections being at the beginning of the month, and we're trying for a game which lasts most of the time until Civ4's rumored release date, but not too long after it.

The only thing driving a start date for me is the allegation by others who have been here longer than me that participation will suffer if too much time passes between games.

What we really need, if we'll let ourselves do it, is to be relaxed and have fun.