1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Team CFC Constitution

Discussion in 'Team CivFanatics' started by talonschild, Jun 7, 2012.

  1. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I'd say the elections should be based on our time rather than in-game time. Every month strikes me as proper. It could later be modified as to bimonthlyor even quarterly a smaller team begins to proceed by consensus. I'd also like to see forceable elections with a substantial majority - two thirds of active members?
     
  2. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Well, after our successful elections, we never really addressed the issue of our constitution. Rather than waiting until there are misunderstandings and hard feelings, probably best to get this thing finalized so everyone knows what our options are for decisions we disagree with. Here was the proposed Consititution:

    The portion crossed out was the only section that there was still discussion on. We said we'd vote on it, but never really got back to it. I suggest we finish submitting our suggestions and then finalize things once and for all.

    As far as Diplomacy goes, I do think that the Chief Diplomat has the final say of what goes into diplomatic messages, after taking the team's opinion into account. I could also see the Leader-Trio having the authority to overrule the Chief Diplomat if it comes to that. Otherwise, elections are the way to go if there are disagreements about the way Diplo is conducted.
     
  3. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    We are on the same page completely, Yossarian. Shall we say a week for suggestions?
     
  4. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,670
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    This, this and 1000 times this.

    I'm telling you right now, this team is going to turn into Team Kaz part deaux quick, fast and in a f*ck*ng hurry if anyone tries to F with this principle, because I am going to start unleashing some 10,000 word tirades like I'm giving out candy:mad:. We are not going to have a vote or poll every time we need to send diplo out :nono:. Sometimes stuff is going to be said that you dont like and that's all there is to it.

    Remember this and remember it well. An OK message now is better than a "perfect" message in 24 hours.
     
  5. cav scout

    cav scout The Continuum

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,608
    But didn't we win when we were on Team Kaz? :think:

    Anyways- I disagree, but not completely. I'm ok with letting our diplomats craft messages and engage in chats. We don't necessarily need to quibble as a team over every word or turn of phrase. However, it would be wise for our ambassador the have their messages vetted before sending them. We all bring different strengths and perspectives to the table and this can only make our diplo messages better.

    As I have already stated though, I don't think our ambassadors should be able to make binding decision for the team. I don't see why this level of unilateral decisionmaking should be granted to one person in the name of diplomatic expediency.

    As far as the time argument- yes it's not good if we wait 2 weeks to send a diplomatic response. But I think we need to take time to deliberate and decide things as a team. If it take a couple days or more so be it. This is why we call it a demogame- we decide stuff (including foreign relations) as a team.

    I don't think the technique of electing someone to have sole powers for a limited term works either. If we have a diplomat make a horrible mistake that goes against the will of the team we can't take it back. Sure we can throw the guy out of office after the fact (and go through a painful process with hard feelings/people quiting etc) but the damage is already done.
     
  6. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    Sure we need someone to be able to make the final decision to break ties but the diplo was rushed through in a few hours and there was no need to get it out so quickly. We all want high participation but that means giving people time to participate. I think that would require 24 hours at a minimum and longer when discussions are intense.

    However, that sort of rule should be enforced by courtesy and common sense. I like the rules lite constitution so far and don't want to unnecessarily clutter it with stiff time constraints.

    So here are a few suggestions. 1) I think 3 day elections are a bit too quick for some of the more casual members, why not a week? And I see no reason not to keep nominations open until the polls start. People will still have plenty of time to deliberate with the longer election cycle.

    2) Also rather than having only the leader call elections, letting anybody call for them would make the leader more accountable.
     
  7. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Well, see, the guy calling the election originally was team organizer, not prime minister. The organizer had no authority in-game. The Prime Minister is accountable to the team organizer, who in turn calls elections when time dictates or a substantial portion of the team demands one. I'm reasonably sure that's the role DaveShack signed on for. (Dave, I never quite understood what 2metra's office was meant to be in the last election.) The post of prime minister, as near as I can tell, went unfilled last election, with an unofficial agreement to have the entire team act as a sort of executive council instead. That leaves final diplomatic authority in the hands of Caledorn, our Foreign Minister.

    Weeklong elections seem perfectly fair, and if they gather support I will support amending the constitution accordingly.

    Diplomats and Foreign Minister should get final authority, if only to end a discussion and send the latest draft. Actually, I like that concept. Foreign policy will be hammered out by the team, with the Diplomat in charge acting as a sort of moderator, keeping an official draft of the current generally-approved form of whatever missive/policy we are working on and being able to close a discussion when time constraints necessitate such an act. A diplomat overly partial to one view could be voted out of office, but would be forced to send team-approved messages as much as possible. Comments?
     
  8. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    We've gotten a few comments so far.

    There was a suggestion to reduce the power of the Chief Diplomat, but there has not been agreement on this.

    There was agreement to extend the length of elections up to a week.

    There was a suggestion to let any team member call elections instead of just the leader, or to allow a Team Organizer with no in-game power call elections.

    Back in August, there was support in making the time between elections longer, and linked to our time. Nothing in the recent discussion about this, though.

    Keep the comments coming. We should probably try to start on a revision by this Friday, so by Sunday we'll have a polished Constitution that we can put to a vote.
     
  9. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Well, the Team Organizer suggestion only would require a minor pruning of DaveShack's powers. I'd call it more of a Team Arbiter, but that's pedantry. Or King, for constitutional monarchical whimsy.

    The proposal to reduce the power of the Chief Diplomat was actually meant to reduce the power of ambassadors. The Chief Diplomat would just coordinate diplomacy. And pottentially serrve in ambassadorships.
     
  10. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Alright, here is a first draft of the Constitution. I say we spend the next day or two revising it, then put forth a finalized version for a vote.

     
  11. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    I like it a lot but would like two changes. I think the line about elections being held every other month on the first should be removed. Real time has little relation to game time to begin with so if we need an election it makes little sense to wait upto 8 weeks for it. On the other hand unnecessary elections are just annoying, so if no body calls one why go through all the bother. If somebody thinks some sort of leadership change is necessary I would just let them call for elections. It is the second in command’s job to organize it in a timely manner, trying to schedule things like that through the constitution is bulky and inefficient.

    Similarly, no need to have elections constitutionally limited to three days. The second in command will be able to gauge interest and activity level and receive team input to set an appropriate time limit when the time comes.
     
  12. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I agree. We can leave election length to the Second in Command's discretion. The other thing I don't like is that the Second in Command overlaps with the Leader's duties. I'd say keep them separate, i.e. only elect a Leader to do all Leaderly things. Leave elections to an impartial person, and probably don't elect a new one every time.
     
  13. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    In principle I agree with the concept of having votes only when called for. However, I am afraid that people will not do it unless there is massive unhappiness within the team with one of the representatives. Calling a vote in public about it may lead to team dissent and people deciding to just leave because their feelings are hurt. This also goes for the representative who may feel hurt over the fact that he was voted out of office because someone called a vote (although that is a risk regardless of how we do it, and I think it is important that those who take these positions are aware if this beforehand and that they do their best to avoid taking it personal). The issue about realtime vs gametime is however a valid point. I suggest we do scheduled elections every 30 turns regardless with the option if course to call a vote for replacement at any time if anyone really feels unhappy with someone in an elected position. We could appoint someone to be responsible for the elections instead of leaving that to the vice leader if that is desirable.

    If this suggestion gets a majority, I also suggest the actual election is done 27 turns after the previous election, and that the election ends at 30 turns (which roughly means 6 days per election).
     
  14. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Okay. I shall make the following proposals for electoral procedure.

    There is an Elector-General, or whatever. His power - singular - is to oversee elections. He can be messaged, privately, to request an election, which he will then call without mention of requester(s). No one need know. He will construct the poll. He will be the final arbiter. Time would be left to his discretion. This would be a permanent post. I'm presently debating whether he should be allowed to hold other positions (leaning toward 'no'). This is what I propose changing the Second-in-Command to.

    Mind you, with the preceding job description, "Second-in-Command" is rather inaccurate. Call him what you will.
     
  15. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    I think this is a worthy suggestion, although people should be able to call for elections publicly if they wish. In addition, why should the position be permanent, that just seems unnecessary. If for no other reason, people do drop out of these games sometimes.
     
  16. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Same as why they should not hold another position: the idea being that having someone above it all, not subject to election. Perhaps I overestimate the politicking, or how much the system could be gamed. In hindsight, I almos certainly did. That is easily removed. And, naturally, one could publically call for an election. Privacy is just another avenue for the nonconfrontational.
     
  17. YossarianLives

    YossarianLives Deity

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Ok, version 2.0:

    Is Elector-General an appointed position, do we vote, or what? Also, do we want this to be a permanent position?
     
  18. 1889

    1889 Mayor of H-Marker Lake

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devil's Punchbowl
    Elector-General should be elected. A permanent position just doesn’t seem practical or necessary.
     
  19. talonschild

    talonschild Drive-By NESer

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    I have been converted to 1889's view of things. Elect the Elector, too.
     
  20. Caledorn

    Caledorn Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,884
    Location:
    Arendal, Norway
    Elect the elector to elect the electees! :D

    Seriously though: The elector general should obviously also be an elected position yes :)
     

Share This Page