Reforming Absenteeism

[Octavian X]

Veera's removal got me thinking about our current absenteeism standards. I was disturbed by two thinks:
A. The power of removal is granted soley to the President
B. The rules governing this are in the CoS.

This is what I have worked up so far. Some additional changes will need to made, namely adding the types of Senate and Council introduced. I also want to make that new official absent thread official...

Note: This proposal removed the current standards for absenteeism, and places those rules in the CoL. I feel that these rules, affecting all officials, should be able to be amended by the populace.

CoL Section K.  Absenteeism
	1.  An official is considered absent from the chat turn when
	    they are not present at the chat turn.
	2.  An official who is absent from the chat turn is not
	    considered absent from the Forum until the Forum absenteeism
	    requirement has been met.
	3.  An official is considered absent from the forum if
	    	A. They have not responded to a required inquiry (Cabinet Vote, 
	    	   request in the official’s department thread) in 24 hours, or;
		B. They have not posted in the Democracy Game forum for 48 hours, or;
		C. They have posted about their absence in the official absence thread
		   in the citizen's sub-forum.
	4. An absent leader who is on the council, the judiciary, or is President, may be removed
		A. 48 hours after the leader is considered absent
			1. By a Senate Removal Vote if the size of the Senate is greater than
			   or equal to the size of the council, or;
			2. By a Council Removal Vote if the size of the Senate is less than the
			   size of the council;
		B. 96 hours after the leader is considered absent at the descression of the President
	5. An absent leader who is a governor may be removed
		A. 48 hours after the leader is considered absent by a Council Remvoal Vote
		B. 96 hours after the leader is considered absent at the descression of the President
	6. An absent deputy or chat representative may be removed by the leader of the office when
		A. Said official has been absent for 48 hours
		B. A new official to replace the one removed is appointed and approved by the populace

A summary...
Officials are considered absent if they have not responded to things like council votes in 24 hours, or have not posted in the Demo Game forum for 48 hours (the rest of CFC doesn't count).
After an official is considered absent, councilmembers and judiciary members may be removed by a Senate Vote 2 days later. Same for governors, only they are removed by council vote. The President can still removed people after 96 hours of absence.
I also added in something to make it easier to get rid of deadbeat deputies: After a deputy is considered absent for 2 days, the leader can kick the person out by appointing someone new to the position.

Thoughts?

 

[GenMarshall]

This proposal looks good, but my main consern is of leaders that has a vacation that lasts for more than 48 hours even if they posted in the Absent Forum and letting the Deputy know that they are in temporary control of the Department.

I am conserned that when a Leader goes for a week long vacation and post in the absents thread. when the Learer returns and discovers that he has been kicked out of office. He would not be a happy camper.

I would like to suggest or add to this is that "When a leader adnounces that he is leaving (Medical, Vacation, etc ) that he should be exsempt from the kicking action If he adds to his adnouncement that he is returning on a set time

 

[Octavian X]

How about...

3. Only officials whose absence is unannounced may be removed from office.

 

[GenMarshall]

That addition looks better

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Better. For example, I have been officiall "absent" for quite a while now. However, I announced my absenteeism, hired a deputy and went on my way. I support this addition.

 

[Cheetah]

Sounds good.

Though I hope that if someone answers a request in his department thread after 25 hours - he would not be kicked out of office...

 

[Shaitan]

I don't like that exception. It would allow a leader to post on the 2nd that they will be absent until the 30th and their job would be protected. I'd prefer not having any exception at all. A leader who's out for a considerable amount of time should not have their job guaranteed. If you are going to be leaving or unavailable for a week you should understand that the game isn't going to wait around for you.

4. An absent leader who is on the council, the judiciary, or is President, may be removed should be changed to: 4. An absent Executive or Judicial Leader may be removed

5. An absent leader who is a governor may be removed should be changed to: 5. An absent Legislative Leader may be removed

Spelling: descression should be discretion

Why can't governors remove an absent governor?

 

[GenMarshall]

What about if someone has to go on a week long vacation like Goonie. I bet goonie would not be a happy camper if he came back and discovered that hes been kicked from office. I would like this exception to pass but have it more regulated.

I my self would be an unhappy camper when I came back from my vacation and discovered that I had been kicked from office.

 

[Shaitan]

My personal opinion is that if a Leader is going to be gone for a significant portion of their term (and 1/4 is certainly a significant portion) then they don't deserve to hold a Leader position for that term. Taking office is a commitment to the other players. Not being there to do the job is a violation of the trust that the voters put in the candidate. I would actually prefer a hard rule that said any leader gone for more than 4 or 5 consecutive days is automatically removed from office.

It is not an automatic boot out in any case (using these rules). There is still a minimum of 4 days absence before a leader can be removed. 6 days before the Pres can remove one.

 

[Chieftess]

That's going to be a problem come summertime, and completely undermines the purpose of deputies. Just about everyone is going to be away at one time or another. Sometimes, they might not know about it until a few weeks before.

 

[Octavian X]

Why can't governors remove an absent governor?

My purpose in dividing this power was simply a matter of balance. For example, governors may be reluctant to remove governors, etc.

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by Chieftess
That's going to be a problem come summertime, and completely undermines the purpose of deputies. Just about everyone is going to be away at one time or another. Sometimes, they might not know about it until a few weeks before.

I agree. Kicking a Leader at the time his 5 days are up would Reder the Deputies Redundant. What happens if a Leader gets into an acedent (Take Strider for example) he was away for more than 1 Week and he was not kicked due to a Medical Reason.

Everyone is going to be away from the Demogame no mater what. It could be a Family Vacation or it could be something serious like an Illness or other Medical Emergencies. I under stand that Being a Leader is a Commitment but sometimes we need to realize that other people have Real Lives. We are Human Beings, We are not machines that run 24/7. People have Jobs, Relationships, and not to mention to take care of there Medical needs.

 

[Shaitan]

I don't see the problem. Booting a deadbeat (no matter what reason the Leader is a deadbeat) will make the Deputy positions actually work. Sure, people will have RL concerns. If those RL concerns are going to take a significant portion of a term, DON'T RUN FOR OFFICE! If you didn't know about it and already have a Leader position, withdraw/retire. If you don't have the common courtesy to get out of the way when you are not doing your job for a significant portion of your term, expect to be removed so somebody else can do it.

It does not matter why a person is absent during their term in office. It only matters that they are absent. Get rid of the chaff or new seeds will never take root.

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

I see the problem. Peope don't know when something in real life will come up. A deadbeat is someone that knowingly and willingly refuses to do his job. I do not believe anyone here has done that. I tend to believe the why is much more important, but then again, that's just me. Let's not forget that most of the players here are underage and have very little power of decision over what happends in their life and how to spend their time, the game should adapt to the players, not the players to the game.

EA

 

[Shaitan]

But at the same time, this game is for many players and cannot cater to a few. What is so wrong with someone stepping down when they will be absent for an extended period? I would respect that decision and vote for that person the next time. I myself don't vote for people who are going to be absent or who have been absent from offices in the past.

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

That's what deputies are for, taking charge of the office when the leader announces he/she will be abscent. If, and only if, there is no anouncement then a process to remove the leader should start.

EA

 

[Shaitan]

I absolutely disagree. If I win an election and announce I won't be fulfilling my duties for 21 days, by your reconning that is 100% okay. The deputy does my job and I take over when I get back. Is that reasonable? What happens if the deputy can't fill in for part of my vacation time? There's no deputy to back him up because I am keeping a lock on the Leader position.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Shaitan
I absolutely disagree. If I win an election and announce I won't be fulfilling my duties for 21 days, by your reconning that is 100% okay. The deputy does my job and I take over when I get back. Is that reasonable?

Yes. Isn't that what we do now?

What happens if the deputy can't fill in for part of my vacation time? There's no deputy to back him up because I am keeping a lock on the Leader position.

That's why we have chat reps.

Once again, I really think we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

1 - It's a game. Sure RL is going to take a priority.

2 - We have 22 posistions, with possibly 2, even 3 more on the way! We barely have that many players to begin with! Because of our rules, a player can't run for 2 offices if they already had one. Even if they could, they can only choose one. Absenteeism seems to hurt us when we're large, and there's a reason for that, which I already said. We just don't have the number of players. When one person leaves, we feel the sting. When we only had less than 10 posistion, it wasn't noticible, since we had deputies.

The problem is this. We're so short on players, that it's almost 1 position per player. Of course there's no deputies! It's against our rules to even run for 2 posistions. Just imagine all the revoting that has to be done for deputies. While I think absenteeism should be modified somewhat, I think the real problem lies in the fact that we're outgrowing ourselves.

Besides, if you think about it, due to our rules, if we replace someone, who's gonig to replace them? Not many players if we have an almost 1:1 ratio of players to posistions. We should make the governors deputies and chat reps for the posistions. The real solution might be to allow players to run for BOTH governor and leader posistion. (leader being council) Yes, I know about the senate, but I think we've really blown this game out of proportion, and we're simply asking for too much.

In conclusion, a "RL = no play" attitude would really cripple us. We'd be asking a brick wall. Newer players may even be intimidated, not just by the game type (emperor, huge map), but also by who they would be replacing. Many of us have been here for a year now, and newer players may feel that one wrong move gets them booted. Goonie wanted to leave because none of his ideas were accepted. We've essentially replaced play with politics. Shaitan says "RL = don't play at all". My reply to that is, "With almost all of our active citizens already in a posistion, who else will?".

 

[GenMarshall]

I agree fully with Chieftess. THe "RL = No Play" Attitude will bring the Demogame to a grinding slow down. Newer Players will be intimidated woud be imitated by the game type, but also we are pitting the player to replace someone who has been here for almost 8 Months or a Year. The Newer Player will also would have the fear of booted if the player made a wrong move. THis game has became more of a Political Sim rather than an actual Game. What ever happened to the Game Element of the DG. I know many people left because it was getting to political.

"DemoGame lets play nice" -Danke

 

[Octavian X]

Truth be told, I love the Political aspect. That is what keeps this game from turning into a giant sucession game. The moments I remember most are those great political debates that have occured. Ironically, even my PI stands out as a great memory.

I still firmly believe that we need a system to remove leaders. I am attempting to create a fairer system but allowing votes to be taken. There will always be times that we will need to remove absent leaders. Let us say, for example, the Chief Justice disappears. This would be a crisis, because the CJ fills in for either PD or JA when they are gone, and none of those positions have deputies.

Besides, people disappear. Remember, real life does take it's tolls. One day, I, or anyone else, for that matter, could drop dead, and no one would know. People could leave in any manner, and worse yet, may not have a deputy. It a deputy-less leader disappeared, we could potentially have a vital department lack a leader for the rest of a term! If a deputy-less governor disappeared, the only provision that could fill in those vital queues is a council vote, which would take up an unnecerary amount of time. If the game is to run quickly, it must run smoothly.

A removal could be looked upon as beneficial. Think about it this way. We still have that excess of positions, so that when this person does come back, there will more than likely be a deputy position open.