Term 5 - State of Emergency Declared

[DaveShack]

Dateline AD 215, Boaring Wallow

Incoming President declares State of Emergency!

Today, President DaveShack addressed the nation, or at least those within earshot of the Presidential Stump, saying that a state of emergency has been declared due to general apathy and depression among the citizens at large. This statement was no surprise to many citizens, who could not help noticing the dearth of candidates for the recent election, poor participation at town hall meetings to direct our national policy on public works and science, and even a general lack of interest in the ongoing war with Mongolia despite very good reports from the front lines. It was unclear what exactly, if anything, would result from this state of emergency, but the President promised to use executive powers to their fullest in an attempt to recover our sense of national pride, starting with the ordinary citizens. He also vowed to work tirelessly to improve "the system" to ensure the efforts of the many people who would fight apathy by making life fun again are not neutralized by a small but very powerful group of political insiders obsessed with processes, dotted i's and crossed t's, and those who worship the dictionary and thesaurus.

When asked how he would know what the citizens needed to heal their civic attachment disorder, he replied in typical political fashion "of course we'll have a poll for that." He then smiled, waved to the crowd, and exclaimed "The office door is open (after you check your weapons with the guards) and any idea is welcome!"

 

[donsig]

If the President truly wishes to heal what is wrong with our country then he should be working to bring about some unity among those remaining (including the small but very powerful group of political insiders, etc., etc.) rather than alienating some of the few who remain devoted to the democracy part of the democracy game.

 

[DaveShack]

What are you going to do if you're the only one who really cares about these issues? Do you intend to drive the game into the ground? What if it's 3 of you against 12 who want to lighten up? I'm as certain as I can be without a poll that it is a majority.

 

[donsig]

What are you going to do if you're the only one who really cares about these issues? Do you intend to drive the game into the ground? What if it's 3 of you against 12 who want to lighten up? I'm as certain as I can be without a poll that it is a majority.

It is not my intention to *drive the game into the ground*. It IS my intention to uphold the laws as we have agreed to them. If this is truly a situation of 12 against 3 then I suggest one of those 12 take Section 8 of our Code of Laws, strike out the references to the 72 waiting period, propose the result as an amendment and pass it. A vote of 12 to 3 would surely be enough to do that.

As for me, this is something I cannot lighten up about. It is not about the length of a waiting period. It's not about a waiting period at all. It's simply about following rules that we make for ourselves. I realize the system we set up for filling appointments leaves much to be desired. But we cannot simply ignore the rules we made because they are inconvenient.

EDIT: Why the heck are you up at 2 am writing this stuff?

 

[DaveShack]

It's simply about following rules that we make for ourselves.

EDIT: Why the heck are you up at 2 am writing this stuff?

You're arguing the meaning of the 72 hour thing with the person who wrote the words. The author is, by definition, infallibile in this type of argument. It's the same thing as asking Thomas Jefferson what the Declaration of Independence meant, or asking St Luke what his gospel meant.

The 72 hours defines the earliest point at which a current office holder can apply for a job. That is its only meaning.

It's not 2am from my point of view, it was only midnight. I'm a late night kinda guy, as anyone who has attended my turnchats can attest.

 

[robboo]

Donsig...do you not see that fighting over minute details of rule meanings might be fun for a few but not good for overall particiation. Can the 2 sides not reach a temporary agreement to compromise and work passed this difficult time.

Might I suggest the judiciary make a final ruling on the 72 hours rule. This has been a problem for the third term in a row. If anything the judicary in the last 2 terms has been inept in delivering timely decisions( over 60 days or 20 72 hour periods) on the 72 hours rule which SHOULD be a fairly simply debate over the interpetation and not a drawnout poll-athon which seems to happen more often than not recently.

 

[ice2k4]

I say we create a state, with the three Mongolian cities we just captured. Even though this doesn't solve our current problem, it doesn't worsen it when the cities are out of revolt.

 

[GeorgeOP]

If this is truly a situation of 12 against 3 then I suggest one of those 12 take Section 8 of our Code of Laws, strike out the references to the 72 waiting period, propose the result as an amendment and pass it. A vote of 12 to 3 would surely be enough to do that.

We don't need to strike out the reference to the 72 hour waiting period. We are arguing about the interpretation of the law, not the law itself. We can change it to clear up the interpretation, but right now it is certain people's interpretation of the law that is slowing the game down. What's done is that the government keeps working with it's interpretation of the law until the Judiciary changes the interpretation. So the President should just make his interpretation and use it until the Judiciary officially changes the interpretation.

Case: Bill of Rights First Amendment guarantees the right to Free Speech and the right to Protest among other things. The US Supreme Court ruled that burning an American flag in protest is protected under this amendmnet. They didn't need to write that in specifically, just make a ruling on it. Before they made the ruling, police arested people that burned the flag. Now they don't, and they can't until another US Supreme Court changes the interpretation. The police were never prosecuted since they were simply following an interpretation.

Our case: The President can interpret that he does not have to wait the 72 hours. Donsig can ask the Judiciary to review the law and clear up the interpretation. They rule the way they want. If they rule that the President's interpretation is correct, we don't need to change anything and can follow that interpretation of the law as law itself. If they rule against the President, they clear up our questions of the law. In their ruling they can also specify that the appointments the President made can or cannot stand.


As an aside to our State of Emergency. How about we have a fascist revolution and take control of this government? I bet we could find a lot of people for our party that way.

 

[donsig]

You're arguing the meaning of the 72 hour thing with the person who wrote the words. The author is, by definition, infallibile in this type of argument. It's the same thing as asking Thomas Jefferson what the Declaration of Independence meant, or asking St Luke what his gospel meant.

The 72 hours defines the earliest point at which a current office holder can apply for a job. That is its only meaning.

There are two things wrong with your analogy DaveShack. The first is trivial but interesting nonetheless. Both Thomas Jefferson and St. Luke are DEAD and so they cannot clarify what they meant in their respective writings. You on the other hand seem to be alive.

The other and much more relevant mistake you are making is assuming we all understood exactly what you meant from the get go. You are assuming that when each of us voted on the constitution and succeeding amendments we knew exactly what you meant and voted accordingly. When I vote on a proposed law I first read the proposal then cast my vote according to my understanding of what is written. I'm not a mind reader. I cannot delve into your mind and ask you what you meant to write I can only read what you've written!

You are of course correct that you know full well what you meant. It is unfortunate that you cannot read your own words objectively and see that there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the dreaded 72 hour clause.

If this were a game where DaveShack was the sole rulemaker then we'd go back and ask him what exactly he meant whenever we had a disagreement about a rule. Well, this is NOT a game where DaveShack makes the rules! WE, the citizens, as a whole make the rules. We should be interpreting them as a group. But do we? NO!!!! Our citizens would rather moan and groan than make a flipping decision. We've actually got citizens who complain about polls being posted! Polls are the most fundamental vehicle we have for making democratic decisions. And we're seeing complaints about using them.

This country is not peopled with men who are capable of making decisions. It is filled with cattle who want to be led to pasture so they can loll and graze all day and grow fat. The cattle just want to chew and bleat about the judiciary not deciding the 72 hour issue. It never once occured to any of the cattle to post a citizen's initiative asking which of the two interpretations we should use. One simple freakin' poll and we'd have had our answer to this controversy long ago. But no, the cattle think ONLY the judiciary is qualified to interpret our laws. The cattle think the citizens are somehow not qualified to interpret our laws. You wonder why we have apathy and a state of emergency? It is because we are a country of cattle who want officials to make all the decisions for them.

Why didn't I post such a poll? Well, my poll would have been open for four days. That would have brought complaints. I could have lived with that though. But my poll would have been private and as such would have been invalidated by the censor. An invalid poll would not be binding and therefore useless for resolving the controversy. No point in me wasting my time posting a good poll for nothing. I left it to someone who believes in public polls to do it. Apparently there is no one out there with that much faith in public polls.

 

[GeorgeOP]

But my poll would have been private and as such would have been invalidated by the censor. An invalid poll would not be binding and therefore useless for resolving the controversy.

Then why not make a public poll? I don't understand why you harp on us about making sure we follow every rule, but then refuse to follow the rules about polls.

 

[donsig]

Then why not make a public poll? I don't understand why you harp on us about making sure we follow every rule, but then refuse to follow the rules about polls.

One of the reasons for using private polls is to destroy the mistaken notion that there is a rule against them. There is no rule currently in place that bans private polls - except for the Censor's procedures. One person has decided we should not use private polls. That's not democracy. Leaving those kinds of decisions in the hands of one official who can arbitrarily write procedures is very dangerous to democracy.

If the majority of our citizens want only public polls then it has to be institutionalized either through a legal amendment or a citizen initiative poll. Right now there is no rule or initiative that bans private polls. In light of this I will continue to fight for a citizen's right to post an initiative as either public or private as he or she sees fit. Hopefully someday soon our citizens will realize that they have the power to answer these and many other questions through initiatives.

 

[DaveShack]

You are of course correct that you know full well what you meant. It is unfortunate that you cannot read your own words objectively and see that there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the dreaded 72 hour clause.

A reasonable person, when told by the author what something means, might say "ok, thank you for clarifying it". It is also reasonable to not just accept someone's word for it -- possibly foolish, but definitely reasonable.

I can forgive you for not succumbing to "proof by intimidation". Perhaps a more scholorly approach will sway your opinion.

As for objectivity on the matter, I'm using English grammar and semantics, and logic, to interpret what I wrote according to the rules of the language.

Let's take an example and work it through.

IIIB. If there is no deputy, the President must request interested citizens that do not currently hold office to contact them. If no such citizen contacts the President within 72 hours of the office being declared Vacant, the President may appoint any citizen to the office.

The sentence in blue filters the people who can apply for a vacant position to include only those people who do not have an office. This is the independent condition, defining what happens if no other modifiers are applied.

The portion in red defines a 1st dependent condition, that no person who does not hold a position contacts the President. The magenta portion further restricts the red portion, by placing a time delimiter. Together, the red and magenta parts modify the blue part, setting the conditions under which the restriction of "do not currently hold office" is lifted.

The black part is the condition which results if the red + magenta conditions become effective, overriding the blue restriction.

Now, I have just broken down the law as written, using the semantic rules of English, in this case the canonical method of dividing paragraphs, sentences, and phrases into independent and dependent parts. Once the law is parsed correctly, it is clear that the 72 hours is a time modifier on who can apply, and not on when the appointment can be made. In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made.

If you try to break down the example using this method to isolate the 72 hours and thereby to show that it applies to the last part in black, you will find that extraneous bits remain which are not part of any other construct. Assume that you're dealing with someone who's at least as good a writer as you are, and ask yourself if you would make that mistake. Ask yourself why only one DG citizen sees the 72 hours as being associated with making the appointment.

Should you use "beyond a reasonable doubt" when interpreting what this law means, or "preponderance of the evidence"?

We don't really need an amendment, or a poll. One person stands in the way of resolving this issue. Would a poll also resolve it? Of course it would, but in case you haven't been following the comments by our current crop of regulars, they don't care about this rule, they just want to play the game. I'd rather not make them vote on something they care so little about.

 

[Tubby Rower]

Donsig's trivial argumentative nature is the MAIN reason why I have found the Demo-game a waste of my time. I have more important things to do besides watching him discuss ad pukeum about extending a poll for a day. I have personally decided to let him talk to himself and vote by himself so that he can get a majority of himself to decided that he doesn't need to recuse himself from himself.

Have fun guys... I had fun in my first and last SP DemoGame. I stopped having fun mainly due to above arguements and have moved on. I'll keep up with what's going on, but will probably not participate anymore. Thanks DS for your effort to keep things running, but alas forum rules prohibit you from removing the biggest problem.

 

[robboo]

ad pukeum...can we add that to the CoL as something not allowed.

Tubby I am getting close to that point too. Just take a look in teh government forum. Hardly anyone has posted their official thread yet. Anyone heard from the new SoW since he self nominated... Right now it looks like a "Tri" of one.

 

[classical_hero]

lurker's comment: The biggest problem with these games is ironically the democracy part of the game. I have found in the reason why these games often are porr is the fact that many people are having an input and thus we are not having great enough leadership. Many times these games are descending into anarchy as a result of this "people" power. Really these games should be a republic where we entrust the main running of the game and this should allow a clear strategy for those who are interested.

Often it is all thes complexities that put people off these games because it should be simple. That is often the what goes wrong, having things complex when they should be simple. The addage, "Keep It Simple, Stupid", is good for these games. I have my share of troubles in the previou Demogames that we ahd and this is why I have been swarn off them for good.

 

[donsig]

A reasonable person, when told by the author what something means, might say "ok, thank you for clarifying it". It is also reasonable to not just accept someone's word for it -- possibly foolish, but definitely reasonable...

In fact, the law itself does not specify either a minimum or a maximum time for an appointment to be made...

Ask yourself why only one DG citizen sees the 72 hours as being associated with making the appointment.

We don't really need an amendment, or a poll. One person stands in the way of resolving this issue. Would a poll also resolve it? Of course it would, but in case you haven't been following the comments by our current crop of regulars, they don't care about this rule, they just want to play the game. I'd rather not make them vote on something they care so little about.

I heard you the first time when you told us what you meant when you wrote the law. Thanks for the English lesson but it was not necessary. I have never said the clarification you have given is unreasonable. I have merely maintained that my interpretation is also reasonable. Which interpretation is to be used? Whichever one the judiciary decides upon. Unless, of course, the citizens pass a law or an initiative to formally decide the issue.

If our citizens really care so little about this issue then why don't you just publicly acknowledge the 72 hour waiting period and wait 72 hours after calling for applicants before making appointments? We could both then use our time to address other issues. As I've pointed out before, having an office vacant for three days does not mean discussion and decision making has to grind to a halt.

 

[Tubby Rower]

please stop talking

 

[ice2k4]

Again not to knock on you donsig, but I agree with classical_hero. We have no leadership, and every discussion, not even move, is being questioned.

 

[donsig]

Again not to knock on you donsig, but I agree with classical_hero. We have no leadership, and every discussion, not even move, is being questioned.

Well then ice2k4 why don't you step up and start leading us? Or are you too afraid someone will question something you do?

@Tubby Rower: If you really don't care about this stuff why do you bother to even open these threads that you care nothing about? Banging your head on the wall is not helping the situation at all young man.

 

[GenMarshall]

Right now I feel that we are in the "storming" phase in our citizens. (Storming is a leadership & group process termonology in which there is chaos and no set leadership). I feel that we should move to establish a leader or someone to step forward, no matter what experiance that person has to move our nation out of the Storming phase and eventualy into the norming phase.

What I have also notice and would voich for is that many of our citizens are still in school, both High School and College and are in a final exams rush in real life. Other factors include people bickering between amongst eachother in regards with laws. This is most certanly a Demogame and that we should focus on the Game and not nit-pick about the rules. Of course that we do need laws in our land to keep things moving smothly but we should also take into mind that this is just a Game, A DemoGame. We are a group of people who are interested in playing a game as a team, a group, and a community.

What I feel we should do is to have the president encurage new citizens to apply for any possitions that they are interested in if they just joined or missed the elections. We need a strong advertisement in CFC to encurage other Civ4 gamers to join the demogame and to interact with us in game related debates and stratigies. Again, this is a community in which we all have a common interest, which is to play Civ4. I would suggest that the Mods of the demogame to make an adnouncement in the Civ4 forums as well as posting a news page in the front page of CFC to have the spot light on the Demogame and encurage new potential citizens into this game.

We need to also have our leaders that we elected and apointed to take an active role in discussions between the citizens and there offices as well as inter-departmental discussions so that we all can best cooridanate information and stratigies in order to play an effective game.

We should encurage unity amongst the citizens and not judge others because of their reputation eather in the demogame or outside. Unity is important to create an effective group so that we can play an oustanding game session. We should not alienate others because their views are different, we should accept thoes who are different.

I urge, no, encurage citizens to rise up and take a leadership possition to get this game moving. This could range from anything to running an office to as simple as looking at the save and report any information to the forums.