Should this even be valid? 0-0 override..

[Chieftess]

In the demogame, EARLY in the morning...[/b]
[04:49] <@ShaitanInDisguise> The libraries are killing me. We've got a settler coming up in 2 and no spear to escort
[04:50] <@ShaitanInDisguise> I need to override Kuhkaff (settler:7) to spear:4
[04:50] <@ShaitanInDisguise> dis, are you an official rep for any department?
[04:52] <@ShaitanInDisguise> Okay, this is a wierd one but let's make it official. Council vote to override queue as noted above. Returns, 0 for and 0 against. President casts tie-breaker to pass queue override.[/b]

*assumes the "cranky retiree on the porch" persona*

Basically, shaitan made an override with no one present, (no cabinet members) The result was an override of a "0-0" vote. The question is, is this a mighty loophole, and should it even be allowed? What should we do, if any, to remedy this? "Why back in my day..." atleast I had at least 1 council member to vote on an override. While the president can override any decision, overriding with no members present seems a bit, 'despotic' if you ask me. Shaitan could have completely taken the game his way, and ignored the council members instructions.

 

[disorganizer]

so maybe we should introduce a minimum number of active (!) participants to the chat.
which would be a COL change (maybe a COS is sufficient? judical review please!).

Anyway according to our rules that one is valid... sorry to say it (i couldnt even have helped because i was a) temporarily absent and b) no cabinet member)

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by disorganizer
so maybe we should introduce a minimum number of active (!) participants to the chat.
which would be a COL change (maybe a COS is sufficient? judical review please!).

Anyway according to our rules that one is valid... sorry to say it (i couldnt even have helped because i was a) temporarily absent and b)

Then get back to work!

no cabinet member)

I think there should be atleast 1/3 of the council department present. (that is, an advisor, deputy or chat rep present for each department) That would be atleast 2 out of 6 present. (Or, we could do 1/2). 3 out of 6.

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Chieftess
I think there should be atleast 1/3 of the council department present. (that is, an advisor, deputy or chat rep present for each department) That would be atleast 2 out of 6 present. (Or, we could do 1/2). 3 out of 6.

Not liking that idea one little bit. That would be yet another limit on the range of times within which Presidents can schedule effective turn chats. If the President is on a different continent or has to keep to a radically different schedule to his or her cabinet then the in-chat override option will be essentially removed, taking with it the flexibility that can often be required in order to fight a war effectively. Remember that the threat of PI still looms over any DP who feels inclined to disregard the (constitutionally defined) will of the people.

 

[Padma]

I read the log, and just chuckled over this one. While I push libraries and other culture buildings as Culture Minister, I try to put in my instruction posts a caveat that the needs of the nation as a whole come first. We needed spears to send with Settlers, and with all the libraries going up, we were getting a little thin on defenders.

Had I been at the chat, I would have voted to go the route Shaitan did.

On the idea of setting a minimum number of council reps to be present for a "legal" chat, I have to agree with Eklektikos. In the absence of clear instructions (for example, caving to threats) the President must use his best judgement. In the case of this "override", well, if people disagree with the action, there is still the PI which can be called.

 

[Danke]

The DP actually has very few restrictions in the turn/chat, except for the general intention of sustaining the will of the people, even when it conflicts with their own preferences. This gives wide latitude for the kind of 'common sense' decisions that give rise to spot votes in the turn/chat. The above cited case being a decent example.

The course Shaitan followed, though amusing, was correct. He can't ignore the need for a spot vote, but there is nothing to say a spot vote with no council members present isn't vaild. His vote still breaks the tie, even a 0-0 tie.

Does this open the door for abuse? Potentially, though a DP who does this to overturn the will o' the people will pretty quickly find themselves in a PI, I would think. Should Shaitan have ended the turn to better ascertain the will of the citizenry or the culture department? That is within his right, but is not required.

I just realized I'm not being any help. If you want to change the law, focus on what Eklektikos said and the difficulties of scheduling turn/chats. Balance that against the possibility of real, ongoing abuse, which in my personal opinion, is minimal.

Danke
Judge Advocate

 

[chiefpaco]

Thank you Chieftess. While I agree with the repsonders that a 0-0 is a valid case for an override, I am also confident that our DP will act with the best intentions. I am more thankful that we do have watchdogs in place, such as yourself, to catch these things, so that the "will" is upheld. I also hope our leaders carefully and continuously monitor and comment on discrepancies between their instructions and the turn proceedings.

 

[donsig]

If it's a 0-0 tie the president breaks the tie. Sounds perfectly legal to me.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Chief Justice Opinion

I fully agree with the well reasoned opinion provided by the Judge Advocate (welcome back Danke!)

I think that the DP should tread very lightly in that area. Any significant queue or policy changes should be anticipated and discussed in the forums.

Further, I would be personally opposed to imposing additional requirements for chat attendance.

 

[Falcon02]

I've really got no problems, Shaitan had a choice to make, and I agree with it, if he had chose to build Library with no good reason, I might have a problem, but we NEED spears at the moment. Our swords must be used on the future front.

 

[Shaitan]

It was a bit wierd and I wouldn't have done it at all except the change was an obviously necessary one. There were a couple of other little things that came up (minor trades) that I would have put up to a vote but refrained from so as not to abuse my aparent ultimate power.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Eklektikos

Not liking that idea one little bit. That would be yet another limit on the range of times within which Presidents can schedule effective turn chats. If the President is on a different continent or has to keep to a radically different schedule to his or her cabinet then the in-chat override option will be essentially removed, taking with it the flexibility that can often be required in order to fight a war effectively. Remember that the threat of PI still looms over any DP who feels inclined to disregard the (constitutionally defined) will of the people.

That's why we have deputies and chat reps...

 

[disorganizer]

And i was the only lance of populace in there
And my boss calld me away at that moment :-(
But i would also have voted for that

 

[Strider]

while what Shaitan did was valid. It was not right. This is a democracy game. Not a depotism game. Shaitan is not a dictator. He's a president. He's to follow the will of the citizenry. In this area he did not follow the will of the citizenry. This is the second time something like this has happened.

 

[Chieftess]

Well, I think there should also be rules for the turn chats, just to make things run smoother, and so things like these don't occur.

If Shaitan can overrule the cabinet (say, after a FA vote to declare war or not), he can have it at 4:00am when no one is there, and say "Oh, I'm the tiebreaker. I'll go against voting for war and say peace").

 

[Shaitan]

I think the point to keep in mind here is I would not do such a thing. It's a bit insulting to read that people are worried that I might. What happened here is a settler was going to be finished with no escort. If I had not changed the build queue of a city to produce a spear, that settler would have had to sit around for additional turns before being able to travel. That's inefficient and foolish.

Nobody has objected to the queue change (how could anybody do so? it's a no-brainer). The majority of posters say I acted legally and properly. Why must I continue to defend myself against charges of despotism?

 

[eyrei]

The way I see it, the DP is the patch for holes in the fabric of our government. The DP can make minor adjustments to correct any mistakes that may have occurred while a decision went through our bureaucracy. If a president is not willing to do this, they have no business being president. If we continue threatening our DPs with PIs everytime they make a decision, we will soon have noone willing to do the job and/or we will still be in the middle ages come 2004 (RL).

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Shaitan
I think the point to keep in mind here is I would not do such a thing. It's a bit insulting to read that people are worried that I might. What happened here is a settler was going to be finished with no escort. If I had not changed the build queue of a city to produce a spear, that settler would have had to sit around for additional turns before being able to travel. That's inefficient and foolish.

Nobody has objected to the queue change (how could anybody do so? it's a no-brainer). The majority of posters say I acted legally and properly. Why must I continue to defend myself against charges of despotism?

I wasn't naming any names. I was using that as an example.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Shaitan
I think the point to keep in mind here is I would not do such a thing. It's a bit insulting to read that people are worried that I might. What happened here is a settler was going to be finished with no escort. If I had not changed the build queue of a city to produce a spear, that settler would have had to sit around for additional turns before being able to travel. That's inefficient and foolish.

Nobody has objected to the queue change (how could anybody do so? it's a no-brainer). The majority of posters say I acted legally and properly. Why must I continue to defend myself against charges of despotism?

Shaitan.... We have no problem with you decision. You're decision was in the best interest of Fanatika. What we don't like is the way you did it. You are not following the will of the citizenry as stated in the constitution firmly, because you did not do the proper arrangments to find the will of the citizenry. Having your vote the tie-breaker in a 0-0 vote is just plain wrong. The fact of the matter is that if you continue to make decisions by youself then you most likely will reach PIment.

Orginally posted by Eyrei
The way I see it, the DP is the patch for holes in the fabric of our government. The DP can make minor adjustments to correct any mistakes that may have occurred while a decision went through our bureaucracy. If a president is not willing to do this, they have no business being president. If we continue threatening our DPs with PIs everytime they make a decision, we will soon have noone willing to do the job and/or we will still be in the middle ages come 2004 (RL).

Eyrei.... If you notice the only other president to get a PI was donsig. That means that Shaitan is doing something wrong.

 

[Chieftess]

Well, I guess my point is (and I didn't seem to make... since apparently I'm pathetic with words), a 0-0 vote is non-existent. How can you have a vote if no one is present? The unique part of this demogame was the turn chat. True, shaitan can't have them at the usual time, so it's at the dead hour... But, the turn chats were where we could have ingame discussions. Sure, one player can play without any input, but this is a game of democracy. If the turn chats are early, let the leaders choose a chat rep that's willing to represent the department vote at that early hour. That's what we did in the first demogame.