Systematic Constitution Proposal

[Octavian X]

How do you plan on impleamenting a 'more interesting deputy?' It's a great idea to get people more involved, but this seems like it's treading further into the domain of elected leaders - trying to legislate a certain style of play. If a leader wants his deputy to work at some interesting jobs, that's his prerogative. If, though, a leader would rather his deputy take a back seat, that's also his decision (and, perhaps, his loss).

 

[DaveShack]

I must be really good at this... usually everything I propose is so littered with problems that the thread hits page 2 within a few hours.

It is somewhat better than previous efforts, however I think we're seeing more a general disinterest with the whole process than sweeping agreement that the proposals are good. I'm seeing the same lack of comments in all 3 threads. Actually I mentioned this effect in the beginning poll for Nobody's draft, and got called to task about that proposal having only been around for 2 days -- but your first thread sat there for weeks without comment, a point that nobody other than Nobody and I had acknowledged. (there I go again )

 

[DaveShack]

How do you plan on impleamenting a 'more interesting deputy?' It's a great idea to get people more involved, but this seems like it's treading further into the domain of elected leaders - trying to legislate a certain style of play. If a leader wants his deputy to work at some interesting jobs, that's his prerogative. If, though, a leader would rather his deputy take a back seat, that's also his decision (and, perhaps, his loss).

Strider, before you come unglued, this is NOT a dig -- just an amusing turn of events.

The irony is that the Tactical branch in DG6 was a stealth way to give the deputies half the power by making them separately elected officials. Now we have an opponent of that system suggesting another system to give deputies power.

 

[Strider]

How do you plan on impleamenting a 'more interesting deputy?' It's a great idea to get people more involved, but this seems like it's treading further into the domain of elected leaders - trying to legislate a certain style of play. If a leader wants his deputy to work at some interesting jobs, that's his prerogative. If, though, a leader would rather his deputy take a back seat, that's also his decision (and, perhaps, his loss).

Take a look at the polling standards in the Code Of Laws. Basically, I've implemented a system of 'official polls.' While part of this is to stop people from undermining a leaders authority, I've also given the deputy of the department the ability to post official polls. I also plan on giving the deputies of differant offices other jobs. IE: I plan on switching the control of the National Budget from the President, to the Deputy of Development. If you also notice unit naming is already under control of the Deputy General (or the Generals Office Deputy).

I may also put the 'information' office in control of a deputy also. I haven't decided if I should though, and if I do who should I put it under? (Possibly the Vice President?)

 

[zyxy]

I must be really good at this... usually everything I propose is so littered with problems that the thread hits page 2 within a few hours.

I takes a while to read it all....
Anyway, here's a list of comments.

Main pro's:

• generally solid judicial procedures. I agree they should not be decided by the court after their election. Having them in the CoL is both efficient and democratic.
• good ideas on the scope of polls. Though I would like some changes: your setup gives too much power to the CJ (who may extend the "validity" of a poll). It is a good idea for short term decisions, like "what to research next". It is disastrous for any long term decision, like the 5BC variant rule, strategic planning for warfare, etc.
• nice idea on letting officials play their part of turn 0.

Main con's/problems:

• no solution to some of the main problems (IMO) of last game: overloaded presidency, inactive officials, offices have no power whatsoever, too many short term and detailed discussions, lack of coordination (should be Presidents job), no department of treasury.
• too much power for appointed deputies, who should simply follow the guidelines of their boss, the elected official.
• enormously long and detailed document. Needs shortening and spellchecking.

General comment: constructions like "...may include but is not limited too..." don't say anything. And now for the details:

Const

Article A: "No rule shall be valid..." conflicts with Article J. Besides, Article J grants a right to moderators that they already have. Perhaps merge these two articles?

Article D: The President controls the budget, but R&D has the slider, that's going to be a problem. Apart from that, the division of responsibilities is nice and gives everyone something to do.
Nitpicks: two Offices, one Department, one Council. A bit too fancy perhaps? The names of the culture department (most important task is settling) and R&D department (also does worker control) are somewhat confusing - the word "development" in R&D usually doesn't mean land development .

Article E.1: how can a mayor be responsible for the "defense and protection of there (sic) city"? They have no control over troops...

Article I.2: I would prefer to have a summary as well.
Commitment of any nonreversible game actions (whether a turn passes or not) should be forbidden to anyone except the DP, except as provided by Am. G.

Article K: elections don't decide who is fit, but only who is elected.

Article L: what happens if the period does exceed one week?

CoL
General: should these really be called amendments??

Am. A.1: there is another type of JR (for amendment of Const), not mentioned here. The type mentioned here should be described as "a clarification of existing law, using only the law and/or common sense" (needs better wording). Otherwise this opens the door to justices inventing new law out of thin air.

Am. A.2 and following: please add somewhere the principles "innocent until proven guilty" and "equality of arms".

Am. A.2.e: why Mod confirmation?

Am. A.3: accusation should also contain the name(s) of the Accuser, and a clear description of the violation. Please no accusations by PM.

Am. A.5: no closing statements for JA and PD?

Am. A.5.b: this gives the defense less than 24 hrs to react to the evidence, provide counter evidence, etc. Way too short.

Am. A.6: who is the jury?

Am. A.7: "Some of the sentencing option the Chief Justice should consider are..." is too vague. It basically says: CJ can do whatever he wants.
I think it's better to leave expulsion and suspension to the mods. Alternatively, maximum punishment levels for each violation of law have to be stated to prevent gross abuse.

Am. B: no JR?

Am. C: polls represent the WotP and so they are always binding...
You are essentially ruling out decisions on overall strategy (because they are not "inside of the duty of any certain official."). That means we cannot work towards any goal, and I think it's a bad idea. A two week sunset provision is also clearly tailored for short term decisions. Giving the CJ the power to delay the sunset is a recipe for trouble.

Am. D: strange list. I suppose it is to exclude utilities, and I am against it. It also excludes information sources such as the game manual, non-DG threads at CFC or elsewhere, live sources, etc...
PttP council: do we need a law for this?

Am. F: you cannot run a budget without control of the slider. I don't understand this. We play 10 turns at a time, how can the President project the budget 10 turns forward if the slider is in the hands of R&D?

Glossary

please replace "50.01%" by "more than 50%".

 

[Strider]

Article A: "No rule shall be valid..." conflicts with Article J. Besides, Article J grants a right to moderators that they already have. Perhaps merge these two articles?

Good idea, and they are now merged together.

Article D: The President controls the budget, but R&D has the slider, that's going to be a problem. Apart from that, the division of responsibilities is nice and gives everyone something to do.
Nitpicks: two Offices, one Department, one Council. A bit too fancy perhaps? The names of the culture department (most important task is settling) and R&D department (also does worker control) are somewhat confusing - the word "development" in R&D usually doesn't mean land development .

That is an example of me being indecisive. I was also thinking of giving the National Budget to the R&D department also, but I figured in the end to give it to the President. Think I should still give R&D control of the National Budget?

Article E.1: how can a mayor be responsible for the "defense and protection of there (sic) city"? They have no control over troops...

Informing the Generals Office of possible threats against there city.

Article I.2: I would prefer to have a summary as well.
Commitment of any nonreversible game actions (whether a turn passes or not) should be forbidden to anyone except the DP, except as provided by Am. G.

Added in a summary. Something I forgot about .

Article K: elections don't decide who is fit, but only who is elected.

\

Fixed, change it to trusted. Elected doesn't fit to well .

Article L: what happens if the period does exceed one week?

Fixed also.

General: should these really be called amendments??

I was trying to find a term to seperate the main bodies of the COL from the Con.

Am. A.1: there is another type of JR (for amendment of Const), not mentioned here. The type mentioned here should be described as "a clarification of existing law, using only the law and/or common sense" (needs better wording). Otherwise this opens the door to justices inventing new law out of thin air.

Fixed

Am. A.2 and following: please add somewhere the principles "innocent until proven guilty" and "equality of arms".

Fixed

Am. A.2.e: why Mod confirmation?

Why not? It's the most efficient way I can think of.

Am. A.3: accusation should also contain the name(s) of the Accuser, and a clear description of the violation. Please no accusations by PM.

Fixed

Am. A.5: no closing statements for JA and PD?

Should they have a closing statement? I see no real point behind having one.

Am. A.5.b: this gives the defense less than 24 hrs to react to the evidence, provide counter evidence, etc. Way too short.

There not suppose to react to the evidence, there suppose to supply evidence as to why the accused citizen is innocent, and not guily.

Am. A.6: who is the jury?

Fixed

Am. A.7: "Some of the sentencing option the Chief Justice should consider are..." is too vague. It basically says: CJ can do whatever he wants. I think it's better to leave expulsion and suspension to the mods. Alternatively, maximum punishment levels for each violation of law have to be stated to prevent gross abuse.

Fixed

Am. B: no JR?

So the Judiciary can say an amendment that changes the Judicial Procedures is unconstitutional because they don't like it? Nope.. were going to have to trust the citizens on this one.

Am. C: polls represent the WotP and so they are always binding... You are essentially ruling out decisions on overall strategy (because they are not "inside of the duty of any certain official."). That means we cannot work towards any goal, and I think it's a bad idea. A two week sunset provision is also clearly tailored for short term decisions. Giving the CJ the power to delay the sunset is a recipe for trouble.

Should a poll that is vague, lacks enough information to make an informed decision, and undermines a leaders attempt to plan be considered binding? Also, a poll that is a month old can not be considered the will of the people. The Will of the People change, and it's using those old polls to make gameplay decisions that cause half of our problems.

Am. D: strange list. I suppose it is to exclude utilities, and I am against it. It also excludes information sources such as the game manual, non-DG threads at CFC or elsewhere, live sources, etc...
PttP council: do we need a law for this?

It never says anywhere that it excludes the manual or anything else. Where'd you get that from?

Am. F: you cannot run a budget without control of the slider. I don't understand this. We play 10 turns at a time, how can the President project the budget 10 turns forward if the slider is in the hands of R&D?

You can very well run a budget without the slider, because your not suppose to add the additional gpt we might make into your budget. I don't see what your point is here, it's possible, and it's been done successfully before.

 

[zyxy]

Thanks for the changes. It looks a lot better! (to me at least )

That is an example of me being indecisive. I was also thinking of giving the National Budget to the R&D department also, but I figured in the end to give it to the President. Think I should still give R&D control of the National Budget?

I guess it's a matter of taste. I like the budget and slider controls in one hand (R&D in this case). If you feel that this gives R&D too much to do, you could consider transferring worker actions to Culture (that department has not so much to do after the first 5 cities are settled). Of course, this is your document, and it's your choice whether to keep them separate or not .

You can very well run a budget without the slider, because your not suppose to add the additional gpt we might make into your budget. I don't see what your point is here, it's possible, and it's been done successfully before.

Maybe separating the budget and slider control has worked well in previous games because nobody around here really cares for spending money? I lurked one of the previous games and there the guy in charge of the budget practically begged the officials to spend some . In the last game, our president in term 5 spend most of the budget in her own mysterious ways, because hardly anybody else wanted it.
Keeping the budget and slider controls in the hands of one person, who is not the DP, forces a bit more discussion on money. It also enables that person to roughly guess how much will be available for the next TC, and so how much there is to spend.

Art I.2: if I understand your definition of "playing the save" (I assume it is the same as "playing a turn" as used here) correctly, this still allows every citizen to open the save and commit game actions such as diplo and trade, or combat, as long as they don't end the turn. Is this intentional?

Art I.2: just thought of something else. The save should be made available to the citizenry at the end of the TC.

Why not? It's the most efficient way I can think of.

Maybe the citizens can request a confirmation poll? As soon as mods step in, you get the problem that questioning mod decisions is not allowed. Also, it forces the mods in an unnatural role.

Am. A.3.a: the reason I wanted the Accused mentioned is to avoid anonymous accusations. It seems that this is still possible if the accusation is PM-ed. Maybe you could add the name of the Accused to Am. A.4.b?

Am. A.5.a: I assume this has to be the same charge as in A.3.a, A.4.b and A.4.d?

Should they have a closing statement? I see no real point behind having one.

Final statements for prosecution and defense are a legal tradition and allow both parties to wrap up their case and draw conclusions. It also provides a clear marker when the discussion is closed.

There not suppose to react to the evidence, there suppose to supply evidence as to why the accused citizen is innocent, and not guily.

This is the first time that the Defense gets to see the evidence (or possibly even the charge, if it is allowed to change). Here the "equality of arms" principle would apply: the JA gets an unspecified amount of time to investigate the charge, so the defense should get that too.
The defense does not have to supply evidence. The accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All the defense has to do is cast sufficient doubt on the evidence of the prosecution. This means the defense needs to know the evidence before it can do that.

Am. A.7.b: maybe add that the poll may not omit weaker sentences than those present in the poll? I.e., if the poll contains Public Apology, then it should also contain Warning and No Punishment.

So the Judiciary can say an amendment that changes the Judicial Procedures is unconstitutional because they don't like it? Nope.. were going to have to trust the citizens on this one.

Good point. I didn't think of that

Should a poll that is vague, lacks enough information to make an informed decision, and undermines a leaders attempt to plan be considered binding? Also, a poll that is a month old can not be considered the will of the people. The Will of the People change, and it's using those old polls to make gameplay decisions that cause half of our problems.

If an unoffical poll (I mean: initiated by a citizen or unauthorized official) meets the CoL requirements then I think it should be binding. Btw, the Will of the People clause in the constitution probably needs some qualification to prevent "bad polls" from being binding as well.
I agree that it should be possible to repoll earlier decisions. I think however that a fixed timescale of two weeks is somewhat strange. This is more than long enough for most of the "click-the-mouse" decisions, but not long enough for long-term decisions. DS had an interesting suggestion, but it may be hard to code it into law.
In any case, I would not let the CJ decide on delaying the sunset. In case of heated disputes it puts him in the awkward position of having to decide whether to follow an old majority or a new one. This is worsened by the fact that everyone can see how the CJ voted on the disputed poll.
It would be interesting to know what mechanisms RL democracies have to deal with this. Maybe we can mimick those.

It never says anywhere that it excludes the manual or anything else. Where'd you get that from?

Maybe I misunderstood. When it says "Information relating to the save game may be legally acquired by the following ways" I assumed that all other ways would be illegal. The only ones mentioned are the save, and certain WWW sources. The printed game manual (for example) is not mentioned.

 

[Strider]

Art I.2: if I understand your definition of "playing the save" (I assume it is the same as "playing a turn" as used here) correctly, this still allows every citizen to open the save and commit game actions such as diplo and trade, or combat, as long as they don't end the turn. Is this intentional?

No it was not, and it's fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Art I.2: just thought of something else. The save should be made available to the citizenry at the end of the TC.

Fixed

Maybe the citizens can request a confirmation poll? As soon as mods step in, you get the problem that questioning mod decisions is not allowed. Also, it forces the mods in an unnatural role.

Ahh, it's starting to grow on me. Changed to a confirmation poll.

Am. A.3.a: the reason I wanted the Accused mentioned is to avoid anonymous accusations. It seems that this is still possible if the accusation is PM-ed. Maybe you could add the name of the Accused to Am.A.4.b?

Fixed

Am. A.5.a: I assume this has to be the same charge as in A.3.a, A.4.b and A.4.d?

Aye, yes it is.

Final statements for prosecution and defense are a legal tradition and allow both parties to wrap up their case and draw conclusions. It also provides a clear marker when the discussion is closed.

eh, oh well. Added.

This is the first time that the Defense gets to see the evidence (or possibly even the charge, if it is allowed to change). Here the "equality of arms" principle would apply: the JA gets an unspecified amount of time to investigate the charge, so the defense should get that too.
The defense does not have to supply evidence. The accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All the defense has to do is cast sufficient doubt on the evidence of the prosecution. This means the defense needs to know the evidence before it can do that.

The Public Defender gets to see the evidence throughout the entire investigation progress. The JA's job is not to prove a citizen guilty, and you seem to think that is all they will be doing.

Am. A.7.b: maybe add that the poll may not omit weaker sentences than those present in the poll? I.e., if the poll contains Public Apology, then it should also contain Warning and No Punishment.

Good idea, added almost word for word (Couldn't think of wording it anyway else).

In any case, I would not let the CJ decide on delaying the sunset. In case of heated disputes it puts him in the awkward position of having to decide whether to follow an old majority or a new one. This is worsened by the fact that everyone can see how the CJ voted on the disputed poll. It would be interesting to know what mechanisms RL democracies have to deal with this. Maybe we can mimick those.

Made some edits to the polling standards... go check it out .

 

[admiral-bell]

Section 2. Council of Culture
The Counselor of culture is charged with the movement and placement of settlers. They are also charged with the formation of boundaries and the monitoring of our culture levels. The building of wonders and spaceship parts are also given to Council of Culture.

Section 4. Office of Research and Development
The Office of Research and Development is given control over all worker related activities. They are also charged with our nations research and the domestic slider. The building of spaceship parts are also given to Research and Development.

is this a two department job or an error?

 

[Strider]

Section 2. Council of Culture
The Counselor of culture is charged with the movement and placement of settlers. They are also charged with the formation of boundaries and the monitoring of our culture levels. The building of wonders and spaceship parts are also given to Council of Culture.

Section 4. Office of Research and Development
The Office of Research and Development is given control over all worker related activities. They are also charged with our nations research and the domestic slider. The building of spaceship parts are also given to Research and Development.

is this a two department job or an error?

Whoops.. nope. That was a copy and paste error . I orginally was going to give both wonders and spaceship parts to R&D, then I was going to give them to culture. I finally decided on giving spaceship to R&D and wonders to culture, but it looks like I didn't change it.

Thanks alot for pointing that out