Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jun 7, 2012.
The current Constitution is as follows:
The King is in charge. His duty is to call and run elections. That's it. This position is permanent unless the King disappears or abdicates.
The Prime Minister is the King's chief lieutenant. As the King does nothing, the Prime Minister is our leader. He is responsible for all cities, all workers, all settlers, research priorities, and anything else not designated the bailiwick of another official.
The Foreign Minister is responsible for dealing with other empires. While he is the default ambassador to any empire, he may appoint others to those positions. This is a permanent position, as are any ambassadorships.
The Marshal is responsible for all units with combat ability.
Other Ministries may be created or abolished by the Prime Minister.
All Ministers have the power to create or abolish posts in their own Ministry. Posts which exist at the time of an election shall be filled by election, unless a vote has determined that they should be filled by appointment.
Ministries must consult with the community before issuing orders to the turnplayer. If one fifth of the community - at present this works out to four members - objects to the proposed course of action, the action shall be put to a vote.
An official will be deemed to have disappeared if less than six hours remain in our allotted turn-time and no orders from them have been issued. If possible, a replacement will issue those orders. Otherwise, it shall be left to the Turnplayer's discretion.
A replacement official shall be considered the default official, able to give orders immediately on following turns, until the disappeared official reemerges or elections are held.
Elections shall be held at the pleasure of the King, with the proviso that no more than 25 turns shall pass between consecutive elections.
All candidates for any positions must submit their candidacy at least two turns before election day. The King shall create a poll, and each team member may cast one vote per position. The candidate who wins the most votes shall occupy the position.
In event of a tie, a second vote shall be called immediately, featuring only the tied candidates. If that vote also produces a tie, the outgoing official shall select his replacement from the tied candidates.
A turn which is played during an election shall be the responsibility of the outgoing officials.
There is no limit on how many posts a person may run for or hold.
A Ministry, at the outset, consists of its Minister. The Minister has the power to create or abolish new posts in the Ministry. Ministry officials are ranked by order of post creation. If a Ministry official disappears, his role shall fall to the next highest Ministry official.
If an entire Ministry disappears, the Minister of the next highest Ministry shall step in as interim Minister. The Ministries are ranked as follows: the Prime Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Armed Forces, and then any subsequently created Ministries in order of creation.
Only the Prime Minister may create or abolish new Ministries.
This is neat and working format, but it strongly mimicries a Monarchy. Are we sure we want a Monarchy instead of Democracy? (I myself prefer the simpler Monarchy reign, but then, it is up to the team to choose)
I like the concept, the king seems like mostly an organizing position, rather than an actual position of power and decision making. We'd still have a democracy, there's just a person in charge of ensuring that the basic elections process is orderly and on time.
The concern I have with it is exactly how the role of King will work. It's not an elected position, so how is the King chosen? What happens if he decides he doesn't want to be King anymore, or leaves the game, or simply disappears around election time? Is King the only position that this player can hold, or could we at some point decide to also elect this player to a ministry?
I think at least initially, we'll need to elect a King, and should there be any reason that we need to replace him, an election should be held again, maybe allowing the PM to organize elections in the interim. I expect that the player we choose to be king is going to be very active and involved with the team, so it would make sense that they could hold other roles as well.
2metra, please show me where I went wrong. If it's as simple as writing "orders shall be put to a vote prior to being given to the Turnplayer" then it's easy. Otherwise, being rather new at this, I may need some help.
grant2004, you have a similar idea as me as how the King should work. I figure he ought to be elected at the beginning, or volunteer then be approved by the community, and then should he disappear the PM can run things until a new King is chosen by similar means. Yes, the King could serve in other posts, too.
I like this. It is a democratic approach to what Team Merlot was in the last MTDG, eliminating the behind-the-curtains stuff that was a bother with Merlot since all votes was behind the scenes. Also the King on Merlot had absolute power, and appointed the ministers directly, whereas this way gives an open election for the positions.
Constitutional Monarchy I guess
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
That was the idea. The direct democracy stuff just confuses me.
Of course, if the Team wants direct democracy, then by all means.
Having different foreign ministers is a recipe for disaster. We need to have one clear, concise voice when dealing with other teams.
The other day, I was reading through the Civfr forums from the last ISDG. It seems that the CFC team had three different foreign ministers, and that the Civfr team had little trust in us. I imagine other teams held similar opinions.
So we could make Foreign Minister a permanent position.
Alternatively, we could break it up by appointing permanent ambassadors to other civs, but not necessarily have the same person deal with each civ. Or would that not inspire confidence either?
Nowhere I said you were wrong in something. There is no right or wrong on something which is about players preferences Actually I like more direct approach in the ruling. But it is just about to be decided I guess. Last MTDG, Amazon was absolute democracy as far as I can tell. And back then Captain Sommerswerd proclaimed Team Amazon as an absolute democracy and if now he is more or less Captain again (we need to vote for Captain or King anyway) maybe he will prefer to try to keep the pure democracy?
Then I'd welcome his input.
To further elaborate on what I wrote above..
A pure monarchy-style team would not be interesting for me. I admit, being part of Team Merlot was indeed very fun from an RP perspective, but one of the things that I didn't like about the team was the internal politics that happened behind the scenes. When Indiansmoke was replaced as King for the team I remember all the PMs that were sent to ensure support for slaze before the vote for King was called by the Team Captain (the rule was every 15 or 25 IG-turns if I recall correctly) Indiansmoke never posted again in the team forums after he was replaced, and I can imagine it must have felt like crap for him to all of a sudden be replaced with no forewarning after all the work he had laid down in the team before that.
What I am saying is basically that running a team like Merlot was run can easily lead to toes being stepped upon and bad blood or players leaving the MTDG and team behind with no interest of continuing. Admittedly, the efficiency of a benevolent dictatorship compared to the polling and debating in a team led by pure democracy is obvious (e.g. leader/civ pick was done by Indiansmoke alone and did not need to be debated for instance). But it also leaves the option that several players will not wish to remain in the team even from the beginning because they disagree strongly with the decisions made by the leader of the team.
I know we are not considering making this team a pure monarchy-style team, but I still wanted to chip this in. A constitutional monarchy styled democracy team may work a lot better, as it still reduces some of the internal team bureaucracy compared to a pure democracyteam. Somehow I seem to be arguing with myself now, but I am wary of making the same mistakes Merlot did. If we want to make the team a constitutional monarchy like suggested, then we need to be aware of the possible traps of doing so.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
One good stipulation might be to require that Ministers consult the community at the very least, or some sort of system to ensure they don't go all aloof and alone on their decision-making. That said, more open elections and discussions thereof will at least ensure there is some forewarning when leaders are voted out.
My thoughts exactly if we agree on running the team like this.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
I dont know, last time it worked just fine with open discussions and simple majority counting - i.e. if something needs to be decided in 6 hours, then discussion starts, anyone can put his reasons/ideas and at the fifth hour, the simple majority of team members who prefer one option over another wins. I also remember that being the General, I chatted the general strategy with t e team, but then I had the freedom to conduct warfare as I see fit, because the other players have vested faith in me, that I will do what is best for the team
Talonschild, have you looked up the old Amazonian constitution? I dont remember it entirely, but it was OK when I read and used it back then. Maybe we can use some ideas from there?
And democracy is not safe from underground and shady moves too I guess. But strong and united team can go trough anything.
Or Republic, depending on how head honcho is selected (elected leader, can be changed => Republic; god anointed => Constitutional Monarchy)
I must agree with Caledorn on the risks and benefits this approach introduces. The biggest risk of having named officials and subjecting their positions to a vote, be it behind the curtains of upfront, is that an ousted official might just leave the game. On the other hand, having named officials can help to get people more engaged and committed and if we are lucky, it can also spread the workload more evenly.
I think that benefits of Constitutional Monarchy/Republic approach outweight the risks as long as whole team is ok with the approach.
If there are doubts on this approach, it can also be brought closer to direct democracy with a rule that a sufficient minority (for example 1/5 of active members) can bring any issue to a vote.
Separate names with a comma.