Three law proposals + low activity -> how 2 decide

[DaveShack]

This is just great, we have three competing (kinda) proposals for the legal structure, and once again we're looking at very low activity in the discussions. Now what? Do we have a 3-way poll for law style followed by ratification polls for the winner? Ratify as a complete unit, or article by article? Anyone want to withdraw their proposal to simplify matters? Any ideas on how to get moving?

 

[zyxy]

Get on with it!!!
(I think it's time to start playing again)

Maybe there is one group of people interested in making constitutions, another group wants to play the game, and right now, group 2 is waiting patiently for group 1 to finish.

It might have been better if we had started with a more top-down approach, first deciding collectively what should be in the rules, and after that writing out the details. Now there are three people who spend a lot of time creating a highly detailed document, and probably two of them will have done so in vain.

The best way out would be to have a 3-way vote to determine the most popular candidate. Then we can all concentrate for a few days on improving or changing it to our liking. After that, a ratification poll for the whole thing at once, otherwise it'll take forever.

Perhaps each of the candidates could provide a short(!) summary of the highlights of their proposal in this thread. A list of the main differences between the three proposals would also be useful.

 

[Strider]

Perhaps each of the candidates could provide a short(!) summary of the highlights of their proposal in this thread. A list of the main differences between the three proposals would also be useful.

I can do that easily enough for mine:

• Special attention paid to making Elected Officials more powerful. This will hopefully increase the interest and demand in the elected offices.
• Giving deputies odd-jobs, and more power in dealing with there office. This should allow the deputie poistions to also be wanted, on a lesser scale than the leaders.
• Detailed polling standards to help stop a citizen from undermining a leaders authority/plans. Also added in a clause that deals with polls of the same topic, but of differant timeframes.
• President selects the DP. Not as far reaching as the DP pool, and much more likely to work correctly.
• Lowers the amount of time it takes to run a turnchat. This should also open up the number of people who can play as DP.
• Another attempt to get more information to the citizens on the forums. Hopefully will work better than last DG's clause.
• Allows a PI (or CC) to be handled privately, instead of causing a huge public fuse.
• Modified to handle 5BC efficiently.
• Includes a Glossery of Terms, which will help newer players learn what is meant by differant DG-oriented terms (and may also help the Judiciary in Judicial Reviews, knows what the articles creator meant by a certain term).

 

[ravensfire]

• Framework style ruleset - Basics and core rules in Constitution, details in Code of Laws
• Layout and language are easy to read and understand
• Recall provision
• DP function seperate from President - allows more citizens to consider each role
• People get to approve each DP
• DP's used in an order, with new DP's getting first chance - no playing favorites
• Structured for 5BC game variant
• Focus is on the Governors, not national level leaders
• Elected offices provided freedom to accomplish tasks
• Elected official required to keep citizens updated about their office

I've borrowed heavily from the various rulesets in the past, and some excellent ideas that have been tossed around. The core framework from DG3, in particular, was inspirition to rewrite and remove several overally large sections from the Constitution.

There are a few key elements to what I'm proposing. First, I've tried to make the format and language clear and concise. Reading the Constitution shouldn't require a dictionary or a roadmap. I've tried to group things that make sense to group, and put things in an order that seems right.

Second, the Designated Player and President roles are seperate now. More than a few people have refused Presidential nominations soley because of the time requirements of playing the save. There are also people that want to play the save, but don't want the political junk of being President. This seperates the two roles, while still allowing all citizens to consider and approve anyone interested in either role.

Finally, the ruleset is structured for the 5BC variant. Our initial 5 cities will be the focus of the game, and each have their own Governor. Nearly everything we produce and build will come from these 5 cities. The focus and individual attention will enable us to manage them effectively. Combining all acquired cities into one position made just as much sense - grouping cities with some production capacity together gives a rewarding and challenging position. I think this will be the most challenging position in the game, rewarding those citizens with strong skills.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

We're close to the point (and probably past it, actually) where we need to post the three proposals in a poll, and vote for one or the other. Mostly, this should be a vote about the core structure and layout. Each of the three versions have differences in core areas, each will need some tweaking if chosen.

We still have a few things to finish up that will affect each proposal - civ name and where to put the 5BC limitation.

Let's get polls up for the ruleset, focus on the winner and resolve the last two discussions.

-- Ravensfire

 

[zyxy]

Thanks Strider and Ravensfire for the summaries! I hope Nobody will show up too, and that it will help people to decide (if there are any people left ).

We're close to the point (and probably past it, actually) where we need to post the three proposals in a poll, and vote for one or the other. Mostly, this should be a vote about the core structure and layout. Each of the three versions have differences in core areas, each will need some tweaking if chosen.

We still have a few things to finish up that will affect each proposal - civ name and where to put the 5BC limitation.

Let's get polls up for the ruleset, focus on the winner and resolve the last two discussions.

Allrighty - I just boldly went ahead and posted a poll.

 

[Double Stack]

Having the summaries are great. I didn't provide any input really on the consitution since I got a little messed up on which constitution says what. I do have a favorite but I read what other people suggest and see if I like that or not.

Just chiming in a bit from the background.

 

[Provolution]

I suggest the moderators just pick one, as they have the final say anyways.