Should we allow appointments in DG4?

[donsig]

Should we allow appoinments in DG4?

Yes
No
Abstain

Discussion link.

This poll will remann open for four days.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Yes, I believe we should allow appointments.

Rather than risk grinding our government to a halt, I would prefer that our ruleset allow us to put a bit of faith in the judgment of the leaders we elect. While some will argue that appointments do not serve the will of the people, I believe that they actually work as an extension of the people's will, with the added benefit of being geared toward the involvement of new citizens.

We must draft Article G so that appointments can be considered.

 

[GenMarshall]

I concur with Donovon. I believe we should just trust the choice of the leader whom we elect to choose a deputy to appoint. Many people would say that appointments are a bad idea but I believe that this is a good idea since it would help a citizen to be involved in the demogame.

People, I encourage you to vote yes for appointments in Demogame IV.

 

[ravensfire]

Yes to appointments

The use of appointments will allow the game to flow, reducing delays and side debates, and allow new citizens the opportunity to participate earlier in a game.

-- Ravensfire

ps, donsig, uhh, what remann mean?

 

[zorven]

I don't understand this argument that it will be easier for new players to get involved. I had no problem getting involved as a new player: I participated in discussions, I became a mayor, I ran for office. I don't know that I would trust an unknown that was appointed to a leadership position.

 

[GenMarshall]

I understand your concern Zoeven. But this is regarding appointing deputies if a person won uncontested
This would be a good thing to have a new person to be appointed to a mayor and/or a deputy. The newbie citizen can earn trust by merely being an active deputy (Like Donovon Zoi, FortyJ, and I).

 

[zorven]

I know this is in regard to deputies. I meant that deputies are part of the leadership, not a Leader, and have the realistic possibility of becoming a Leader.

 

[Plexus]

Yes. It will allow the game to be played at a faster pace.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Yes, I think that is a good way to get new players active.

 

[zorven]

Are those voting believe that this poll is in regards to mayors or to deputies, or both?

 

[donsig]

It is a shame that those voting to allow appointments seem to cite moving the game along faster or something similar as their reasons for doing so. There are many ways to ensure the game moves along without resorting to the use of appointments. For instance we could use deputies to fill in...

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Since I am not certain that Mayors will be defined by our Constitution, I would imagine that this is mostly about deputies.

Keep in mind that this poll does not make the concept of appointments a foregone conclusion. It merely illustrates that we should define Article G of our Constitution so that we may at least discuss the possibility.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
It is a shame that those voting to allow appointments seem to cite moving the game along faster or something similar as their reasons for doing so. There are many ways to ensure the game moves along without resorting to the use of appointments. For instance we could use deputies to fill in...

And you are, of course, correct about deputies.

But ...
Where do those deputies come from?
What to do if a leader resigns, and there is no deputy?

Mostly the first, as the President can also act in place of a vacant leader as a temporary stopgap measure.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Rik Meleet]

I interpreted this thread-topic as appointing Mayors, deputy-mayors, Military leuitanants (pardon my french), science-assistances etc.

Being Deputy Mayor of Gorina ignited my enthousiasm. I want to give this back to new players.

 

[TerminalMan90]

I voted yes to appointments of deputies.

In the case of a resignation or an extended period of unexplained absence, the DP temporarily assumes the leader's workload and a new election is anounced with the appointed deputy at the head of the ballet. That way other interested citizens can apply for the position and the citizenry get to decide who the replacement will be.
If nobody steps up to contest the position, the ballet should be yes/no and the citizens still get to voice their opinions.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I like this method, TMan, and have stated it somewhere(though in a much less articulate manner) myself.

This way we can have appointments, but a new leader is still elected should a mid-term issue arise. The only time the "non-elected" deputy will be in control of an office is the few days it takes to confirm the new election.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Since I am not certain that Mayors will be defined by our Constitution, I would imagine that this is mostly about deputies.

Keep in mind that this poll does not make the concept of appointments a foregone conclusion. It merely illustrates that we should define Article G of our Constitution so that we may at least discuss the possibility.

Or it may mean that we shoudl just go ahead and write Article G to explicitly ban or mandate appointments. It is my hope that we will do so rather than have to rely later on *what the framers had in mind* when they wrote the constitution. If we have something definate inmind then let's put it into words and leave no doubt.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire

And you are, of course, correct about deputies.

But ...
Where do those deputies come from?
What to do if a leader resigns, and there is no deputy?

Mostly the first, as the President can also act in place of a vacant leader as a temporary stopgap measure.

-- Ravensfire

#1: If article G mandates that they be elected then they will have to be elected.

#2: Why would we wait till a leader resigns to find him a deputy? Why wouldn't we find a deputy as soon as the *old* deputy left?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that an appointment process (especially one with any kind of confirmation attached) takes time. Yes, special elections take time, too, but since neither is instantaneous I still prefer elections.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig


#1: If article G mandates that they be elected then they will have to be elected.

#2: Why would we wait till a leader resigns to find him a deputy? Why wouldn't we find a deputy as soon as the *old* deputy left?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that an appointment process (especially one with any kind of confirmation attached) takes time. Yes, special elections take time, too, but since neither is instantaneous I still prefer elections.

The last scenario refers to a situation where the deputy isn't around, or is unable to assume the office for whatever reason.

Your point is a valid one - it's just a question of preference for me. Either approach would work - I think appointments would be a touch (1-2 days) shorter.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by TerminalMan90
I voted yes to appointments of deputies.

In the case of a resignation or an extended period of unexplained absence, the DP temporarily assumes the leader's workload and a new election is anounced with the appointed deputy at the head of the ballet. That way other interested citizens can apply for the position and the citizenry get to decide who the replacement will be.
If nobody steps up to contest the position, the ballet should be yes/no and the citizens still get to voice their opinions.

Why not just have the DP carry the workload until the election is settled. Under your proposal we don't even need a deputy.

I have always assumed that the whole reason for having deputies is so that a given office will continue to function even if the leader inexplicably disappears for just a short time. It goes back (once again) to whether deputies can take over at any time the leader is gone or whether the deputy has to wait around to be formally elevated to the leader position. It amkes no sense to me to have to have a given number of game play sessions missed before the deputy can step in. The whole point is to no miss any game play sessions.