splitting the constitution - how can that work?

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
1) i did not undersand much of it (maybe cause im ill? or is it just too complicated)

It has become complicated. Are there any particular parts that need clarification?

2) the "book of regulations" was meant as detailing the laws. as so, for example, a law could be that the turn chat will be done in a posted schedule and that this schedule has to be posted regularly, and the regulation says that the schedule has to be posted till sunday and a minimum of 24h before the first chat.
as such, propoting arcticles from regulations->law is nonsense. promotion from law-constitution would be good, but should be more restricted, as we dont want to clutter constitution

The Book will also be the first step for new rules and regulations. A sort of testing ground to make sure they work before writing them into law.

3) the president decides what to do with a leader? no! citizenry decides.

This was taken from Duck's rules. I agree that something as vital as a leader should be used according to a citizen poll.

4) you must destinguish between "citizen census" and "active citizen census" more in the writing. some time you talk of census, some of "active citizen census". please use the second all the time, because the other one is our census of the registered citizens

Good point!

5) add:
constitution:
* a citizen must register in the registry. all forum users not registered there are no citizens.
law:
* a citizen leaving the game should delete the entries in his post and state there why he left
* citizens should edit their posts in the registry if some of the facts stated there change

Added citizen registry to the Constitution.
Added #2 and #3 to the standards.

6) i would add as first article:
all power of decision in the game should lie withing the powers of citizenry, not within the powers of any individual.

The Preamble covers this about as strongly as we can realistically do. "We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have a voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires of the Phoenatics."

 

[Cyc]

Well, I might as well jot down my notes, too:

I would like to see the title of the Code of Conduct Section changed to the Code of Standards. When discussing this Section, I for one would refer to it as the COC, which would mnake a lot of people think I was talking about the Chain of Command.

I believe I would take Article I out of the Constitution and make it a Law.

In Article K, you talk about a quorum being made up of the two citizen votes and half the council. That's good, 5 of 8 votes make a quorum. Do you keep this standard of a majority (as opposed to one half) throughout this document? You also need to clarify exactly what this quorum is for.

In the Code of Laws, Citizen's Rights,Point 5, sub- b. Please take out "or discussion". It's a judgement call in the laws and in a council vote for the citizens.

Judicial branch, Point 2, sub-a1. Just the Public Defender must vote in accordance with the citizens? Please take out discussions.

Council Votes, All Points. Each Point calls for a simple majority. This is a simple majority of who? In each type of Vote? Needs clarification.

Code of Conduct (COC), Section O, Forum Organization. Do you think the Phoenatica National Art Museum should be stickitized?

Section P. What method of posting should be used when posting the save. The forum server or the file server?

Section T, Point 1a. Council quorum of 4 participants means the council without the Judicial Members? If all 8 are included, the quorum should be 5. I strongly believe this.

Point 2, sub- b1. All polls have a minimum duration of 24 hours? Section L, Point 8 sub- a3 states 48.

Point 5, sub- b1. The word "or" should be changed to "and". This point is debateable, maybe we just need more discussion on it. Also, I'd like to see a blurb in there stating that the action or change, direction, whatever can be changed again or back to original by popular citizen vote.

Section U, Investigations, Point 7. The Judge Advocate will post a trial if just one peron requests it? Even if that person is the only one in 48 hours?

OK. I'm done for now. We seem to have a lot of discussion here.

 

[disorganizer]

Well, maybe its because my brain just blows my head right now, but i even dont understand this article of the constitution right now, shaitan. I for now blame it on illness but i dont see my point in the article ;-).

To the "regulations":
we should use this as it was intended. As i think about it, the propoting procedure is not right at all. We tried to destinguish betweed rudimentary rules, rules and standards for the rules to work with the 3 books. with the propotion-scheme, we break with this idea.
i would propose something else:
1) a law is introduced or changed:
it gets a status of "unapproved". when unapproved, any law can be changed or deleted with a vote complying to the book of regulations (simple citizen poll).
at the beginning of the next term, after a minimum of 2 weeks, a simple citizen poll is posted. if accepted, the law becomes "approved" and complies to the polling-rules of the book of laws thereafter, if not accepted it is automatically deleted (maybe even a 4 option poll would be good: approve, unapprove, delete and abstain, where the second leaves the law unapproved for 1 more term, up to a maximum of 3 terms).

this can also be used for the constitution, but there instead of the simple citizen polls the polling rule for changes in the book of law apply.

this would bring in the same effect as "promotion of articles", but wont temper with the idea of the "3 books", with 1 for the plain ideals and principles, 1 for the more detailed laws (still no dates, times etc. in there) and 1 for the detailed ways to handle laws (see chat schedule example)

 

[disorganizer]

btw:
i think we should spawn the proposal to a new thread.
1st post:
updated version of the proposal
rest:
discussion

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Introduction: Yup, that's the plan. This gives a good testing ground for changes and forces reaffirmation of citizen approval as the rules gain more authority.
Article E: My concern here is that terms could be very short in the beginning of the game and very long in the middle and end of the game. A world war in the industrial or modern age can make individual turns last for an hour or more.
Article G: Yes, the majority mentioned here is of the census in the next article. I'll reverse the two so the census is defined first. We couldn't keep an amendment poll open indefinitely as there has to be a set time that it closes so the results can be used. Our standards define the common day to day life of the citizens of Phoenatica (how the Forum is used, etc) so I definitely want these to be passed by citizens. Government officials can propose standards too, so items needed for governing effectively are still in the purview of the officials. We've also got an established history of public approval for these. Taking that away would be a bad idea, IMHO.
Articles J & K: This is a problem that actually makes it very difficult to work on the "C". Our Cabinet functions as both the legislature and the real executive branch. That is, the officials make both policies and laws. I have been working on a plan to fix this but it might be pretty unpopular (see next post).

Introduction: I'm not aginst this plan per se, but think that we should be able to go directly to a law or an amendment if there is a consensus that such is what is really needed.

Article E: I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps we need a combination of the two. I think I'm looking more towards the start of a game than our current one here. The beginning is the make or break part of a Civ game and the game turns go faster as you indicate. Perhaps it is best to leave the term on a monthly basis. My concerns could be remedied by a standard or law that limits the number of game turns that can be played in a term.

Article G: So, what is the relationship between majority and quorum? I don't see why an amendment poll can't be open ended timewise. At the very least it should have a long (at least a month) period to be open. When an amendment poll is opened, the census will be in place and we will know how many votes are needed to pass the amendment. Once the threshold is reached it passes.
I have to continue to disagree majority polls being needed to pass standards. Perhaps we need a further division betwen standards and regulations. Regulations would pertain only to technical aspects of running the government (like turn chat schedule posting) and would be made by government officials. It just seems to me that there are some things that need to be done quickly and the process of discussion and getting a majority vote in a poll is very time consuming especially since we hardly ever get a majority of our citizens to even vote in polls, let alone vote on the same option!

Articles J & K: I think the reason the cabinet and president act as both executive and legislature is that they are are supposed to be communicating with the citizens so the citizens wishes are met. I think we should consider the citizens themsleves to be our legislature. Cabinet votes should remain in place as a means of over-riding build queues and departmental decisions. BTW, the inclusion of a judicial branch is great!

 

[Shaitan]

Response to Cyc's comments/suggestions

Code of Conduct -> Code of StandardsGood point. Changed it.

Article I out of Constitution and into Law. Already did (Section B of the Code of Laws). Just forgot to take it out of the "C". Thanks for the catch.

Article K, Quorum I meant this to be half (that's what was approved in our poll results). After changing the wording a dozen times I think I confused myself. Half should be consistent throughout the document. Added that the quorum is for polling.

Code of Laws, Citizen's Rights,Point 5, sub- b.I agree. "Discussion" shouldn't be there.

Judicial branch, Point 2, sub-a1. Good catch. Had the powers listed separately first then combined the common ones but missed that. Fixed it and took out "discussion".

Council Votes, All Points. Got it. Good catch.

Code of Conduct (COC), Section O, Forum Organization. Absolutely yes. Ongoing threads like the Cultural Art Museum and the Newspaper should be stickied. What would a good description of these threads be? They don't fit under Citizen Groups.

Section P. File server. Should have said 1 post also, instead of 3.

Section T, Point 1a. Council quorum of 4 participants includes the judiciary. This confusion stemmed from the one you caught above in the number of respondents to constitute a quorum.

Point 2, sub- b1. Section L, Point 8 sub- a3 states 48 but that's for Council votes. the 24 hour rule for citizen polls came from our discussions on poll reform.

Point 5, sub- b1. Used "or" because many of the items that a spot poll will be used for won't have an expiration. That is, they'll be instant effects like promoting a unit, making a trade deal, etc. I added the requested blurb.

Section U, Investigations, Point 7. Not my idea of fair justice either but it's what came out of the discussions for investigations.

 

[donsig]

I like the idea of letting (EDIT) presidents have authority over leaders. It is great foresight to include leaders in the mix though I think all powers of governemnt officials should be in the constitution. I would qualify the authority over leaders to be in line with all other governmental powers, i.e., the president must make his or her decision regarding leaders based on the wishes of the citizens. If there is a tie the president would have tie breaking authority. If there is no valid, binding poll in effect about leaders then the president would at least have authority to do something with the leader. BTW, getting a leader ranks with war as a good reason to halt a turn chat (though stopping turn chats should be standards).

 

[donsig]

I need a print out of the document with the changes that have already been made. Have you updated the posted file Shaitan?

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
To the "regulations":
we should use this as it was intended. As i think about it, the propoting procedure is not right at all. We tried to destinguish betweed rudimentary rules, rules and standards for the rules to work with the 3 books. with the propotion-scheme, we break with this idea.

The object is to be able to try out and perfect new rules, regs, and laws before they become part of the Code of Laws. No more fiasco's like the 24 hours to post the schedule rule.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig
Introduction: I'm not aginst this plan per se, but think that we should be able to go directly to a law or an amendment if there is a consensus that such is what is really needed.

It still can. There's no restriction on that, just that the normal course would be staggered development.

Article E: I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps we need a combination of the two. I think I'm looking more towards the start of a game than our current one here. The beginning is the make or break part of a Civ game and the game turns go faster as you indicate. Perhaps it is best to leave the term on a monthly basis. My concerns could be remedied by a standard or law that limits the number of game turns that can be played in a term.

Could you start a new thread for this discussion? We can plug it into the new "C" if a change is warranted but it isn't critical to the new revision.

Article G: So, what is the relationship between majority and quorum? I don't see why an amendment poll can't be open ended timewise. At the very least it should have a long (at least a month) period to be open. When an amendment poll is opened, the census will be in place and we will know how many votes are needed to pass the amendment. Once the threshold is reached it passes.
I have to continue to disagree majority polls being needed to pass standards. Perhaps we need a further division betwen standards and regulations. Regulations would pertain only to technical aspects of running the government (like turn chat schedule posting) and would be made by government officials. It just seems to me that there are some things that need to be done quickly and the process of discussion and getting a majority vote in a poll is very time consuming especially since we hardly ever get a majority of our citizens to even vote in polls, let alone vote on the same option!

The majority referred to is a majority of the quorum, not a majority of all citizens. The quorum is half of the active, voting citizens. Getting a majority of the quorum to approve means about a quarter of the active citizens vote for the measure. We'll have to agree to disagree on citizen envolvement in the standards. We may need to poll for this?

Articles J & K: I think the reason the cabinet and president act as both executive and legislature is that they are are supposed to be communicating with the citizens so the citizens wishes are met. I think we should consider the citizens themsleves to be our legislature. Cabinet votes should remain in place as a means of over-riding build queues and departmental decisions. BTW, the inclusion of a judicial branch is great! [/B]

That makes sense, but if the citizens are the legislature then they need to be able to make laws and change the constitution.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig
I need a print out of the document with the changes that have already been made. Have you updated the posted file Shaitan?

Here it is.

 

[Shaitan]

The various versions of the working copies can all be downloaded from the first post of the At-Large Council thread. I'll relink that each time an edited version is posted.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
The majority referred to is a majority of the quorum, not a majority of all citizens. The quorum is half of the active, voting citizens. Getting a majority of the quorum to approve means about a quarter of the active citizens vote for the measure. We'll have to agree to disagree on citizen envolvement in the standards. We may need to poll for this?

It is difficult for me to reply here since I haven't been through all the laws and standards yet and haven't seen the changes made so far, but I will try. If article G is reffering to a majority of the quorum and a 2/3 majority of the quorum then I really disagree. If the census said we have 48 citizens then 24 would form a quorum, 13 could pass laws and 16 could amend the constitution. That's a little over 25% and 33% respectively. That is scary especially since the powers of the government are in the laws section! These powers should be in the constitution and that document should be difficult to change. If we have 48 citizens then 32 should agree to any amendment for it to pass. Laws could be based on a 2/3 majority of the quorum while standards can pass with a majority of the quorum.

Could you start a new thread for this discussion? We can plug it into the new "C" if a change is warranted but it isn't critical to the new revision.

My concerns regarding a limit on the number of turns played in a term is moot in our game I think since we have slowed. It is more relevant to the next demo game (should our constitution carry over). When we get around to discussing ideas for the next game I'll inject this idea there.

That makes sense, but if the citizens are the legislature then they need to be able to make laws and change the constitution.

Yes, Yes, Yes! We are basing these changes on a vote from the citizens anyway. All that is missing is their ability to directly initiate the process.

BTW - Thanks for the new copy Shaitan!

 

[Shaitan]

Okay, let me try to sum what I think is the overall proposal (correct me if I fubar):
The citizens are the legislature.
Laws and Amendments originate with the citizenry (which is, in effect, everybody who plays the game so officials can still do this as well).
Standards are set by the Council (which is actually the executive branch).

That could be workable but it's a pretty radical departure from business as usual. I'm not opposed to it as I think it would give more power to the people and seems to balance well (just opposite from what I was thinking). Anybody else care to comment?

If article G is reffering to a majority of the quorum and a 2/3 majority of the quorum then I really disagree. If the census said we have 48 citizens then 24 would form a quorum, 13 could pass laws and 16 could amend the constitution. That's a little over 25% and 33% respectively. That is scary especially since the powers of the government are in the laws section! These powers should be in the constitution and that document should be difficult to change. If we have 48 citizens then 32 should agree to any amendment for it to pass. Laws could be based on a 2/3 majority of the quorum while standards can pass with a majority of the quorum.

The problem is low participation. We had over 50 voters in the presidential election. We regularly have between 20 and 25 votes on most polls. Don't think of the entire citizenry when figuring what percentage of the players are making the decisions. Think of the active citizenry, as these are the ones who are making the decisions. Of a group of 25 people, are you comfortable that 13 could make a binding decision for all 25?

 

[Shaitan]

Ignore the last part of my last post. I totally missed your point.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig
If article G is reffering to a majority of the quorum and a 2/3 majority of the quorum then I really disagree. If the census said we have 48 citizens then 24 would form a quorum, 13 could pass laws and 16 could amend the constitution. That's a little over 25% and 33% respectively. That is scary especially since the powers of the government are in the laws section! These powers should be in the constitution and that document should be difficult to change. If we have 48 citizens then 32 should agree to any amendment for it to pass. Laws could be based on a 2/3 majority of the quorum while standards can pass with a majority of the quorum.

Okay, let me try again.

Quorums work statistically. Of a pool of 50 people, a segment of 25 people will generally come to the same consensus as all 50. If there are 50 active citizens and a quorum of 25 then a measure can pass with 25 respondents and only 13 yes votes. It's not 13 people making the rule though, it's 25. Statistically, it would be the same result if all 50 voted.

 

[disorganizer]

donsig: i cant believe it! we agree on a thing ;-)
shaitan:
the 3 book proposal was NOT thought as for ripening the laws, but for distinguishing between easy to change and not-so-easy to change rules.
if you continue to read my post above, i proposed a solution to your point, to which you said nothing ;-) it would nevertheless have exactly the same effect: making new laws and articles of the constitution easy to change.

now another thing:
one of our thread held the proposal of having 3 kinds of polls:
1) a simple citizen poll
simple majority for yes (2 yes, 1 no, 15 abstain would accept)
2) a majority citizen poll
majority of total votes needed (11 yes, 1 no and 4 abstain would accept, 2 yes, 1 no, 15 abstain would not).
3) cabinet poll
absolute majority of cabinet positions have to vote yes.

with these 3 kinds of polls (of course, in addition to that the quorum rule will be needed). we should define 3 poll-types to handle the 3 books. we could also combine them, like constitutional changes need 2) then 3). law changes need 2), regulation changes need 1).

another thing:
polling times less than 48 hours will lead to low participation (historical knowledge). during war, all polls with only 24h duration participated 8-11 votes, as all other got around 20 votes. this lead to decisions to be taken which were not in the sense of the majority of citizens.

 

[Shaitan]

The 24 hour poll time is a minimum allowable. The poster can always choose more time. The quorum requirement will make sure that low participation polls won't approve decisions of a minority grouping.

I'll respond to the rest later, just don't have time right now. (sorry)

 

[disorganizer]

maybe we should then implement a "standard discussion" and "standard poll" time of 48hours
in addition to the minimum timesb

 

[Shaitan]

2) a majority citizen poll
majority of total votes needed (11 yes, 1 no and 4 abstain would accept, 2 yes, 1 no, 15 abstain would not).

This can't work as it effectively removes the abstain option. The same results will be obtained if you use the options of YES, NO, and OTHER NO.

Re: standard times. Excellent idea. I was working on a set of "best practices" and that included running polls for a minimum of 48 hours and extending this to 72 if it hits a weekend (as attendance drops on the weekends). Wasn't sure if that should be in the standards though...