Triumvirate v5.0

[Swissempire]

I agree with you on some points ravensfire but the "overrides" are checks and Balances.

I agree though with your idea of conformation polls for filled vacancies. It stops "cronyism" and prevents a Demo game Bush *shudders*

 

[Alphawolf]

Comments on 5.1

Section 1.A
Just a warning - this can get quite chaotic.

True I can see how it could but chaotic is no reason to remove rights from citizens. Also Democracies are chaotic by definition and I mean the real true definition not the bastardization we have today.

Any details on this process?

Umm yes in Section 7 Impeachment.

Section 1.B
Any details on this process? Ahh, all the way done in Section III. Wow - that makes it difficult to read.

I thought it should be in Sub-section III which actually deals with the Cabinet not where it states who is in the Cabinet.

Typo - Interior or a Governor

Thanks for catching that, I typed most of this when I should have been asleep.

Section B.II.2.E.II This section is still a deal-breaker for me. Discuss it, poll it, doesn't matter. I do not, in any way, support overrides. They will cause problems.

I respect your opinion Citizen Ravensfire, I however do not agree with it.

may order the ending of play in continuing requires a decision to be made that can only be made by the Citizens Assembly

Huh? This doesn't make sense as written

The “in” should be “if,” sorry I was asleep.
Do you mind if I abbreviate your name as RF?
.

Add, if no vote on that decision has not concluded. This allows the Assembly to be proactive.

I added it but change it so it would not be a double negative.

But the President is also a citizen, so why include this? Even as a citizen, the MoW (for example) would surely reference their position. I don't think you need this clause.

I thought I had removed that clause of V5.1 but I guess not. Sorry about that.

If this refers only to those that voted, please explicitly state that. 51/58% of what? Total Voters, or census?

Of votes cast.

Is this a list binding on the Governors?

No, the list is a general plan, a Governor may deviate from it as necessary.

Deal breaker again - will not ever agree with overrides. Also, gramatical issues with the last sentance.

I fixed the grammatical issues in the last sentence .

Section B.IIIE What? No overrides for the Minister of Science? <slight sarcasm there, but only slight. If you're giving overrides out, why exclude other offices?>

:does not answer sarcasm smiley:

Section IV Vacancies Very, very strongly disagree with this process. Far too much consolidation of power. Appoint a citizen to take over the role, subject to confirmation poll.

Your objection is noted.

Section 2
Doesn't make sense. Also, session, not secession.

Yes it does the DP is the acting Governor of any City built during his turn. Fixed the error, thanks for finding it.

So now the Governors can override the Cabinet?

This was is also part of the Flexible Government, or did you not read it before voting for it?

Impeachments should be done by the Assembly. Easy exploit - party gets 60% of Governor positions, and removes non-party members. Gee, that's fair.

I had not intended for it to be an exploit, Governor can no longer be impeached.

Section 4

Renumber first section as 'A'

Thanks for finding it, it is fixed.

Too easy for problems - specify in here what the order should be so no arguements happen.

Done

First, "refuse", not "reuse". Second, in the event of a JR request, this would result in the delay of the game session until the JR is resolved, correct? If so, please state this.

Done and Done.

Section 5
Strongly dislike this - cannot see a good reason to allow a person that does not want to form a "group" not to run for an office here. Deal breaker. Ah, a sunset clause. Still, don't like the concept as it places a high barrier of entry to the top three offices.

I would personally like to see the experiment.

Section 7
Strongly disagree. Judiciary must make unpopular rulings, and should not have the threat of impeachment over them. They must rule according to their reading of the law. The only time a Justice should be removed from office is through a sentancing poll from a successful CC.

Please do not abbreviate, what is CC? Judiciary and Governors can no longer be impeached.

Section 8
Disagree - no reason for this. We should have more than sufficient citizens. This is a power grab.

Disagree - no reason for this. We should have more than sufficient citizens. This is a power grab.

This was not intended as a power grab. Please explain THIS I.1 before I will consider removing it.

Section 10
Should be "posts a proposed poll".

I like parts of this, other parts are complete deal-breakers. Should this pass, I will offer several amendments to change them.

That is your right as a citizen.

-the Wolf

 

[Alphawolf]

Version 5.2 is now up.

-the Wolf

 

[ravensfire]

I wish you the best of luck with this ruleset, AW. It's becoming increasingly difficult to determine the changes, and that makes discussions quite difficult.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Last comment from me here - please review the Triumverate proposal to verify that it follows the Constitution. I think there may be some issues with Article C.

EDIT: Upon further review, I was mistaken.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Alphawolf]

Version 5.3 is up Change Log on second post and on this one.

I would like to thank Ravensfire for telling me what a Change Log is.
Change Log
V5.3
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause II, Sub-Clause IIA, Point 3 added: The President retains all powers not expressly given to another official and not reserved by the Citizens Assembly.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause II, Sub-Clause IIB, Point 1, Sub-Point B changed: The Secretary of State no longer needs the Triumvirates Permission to accept a city.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause III, Point 1, Sub-Point A changed: for clarity.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause III, Point 1, Sub-Point B changed: for clarity.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause III, Sub-Clause IIID, Point 4 added: The Minister of Culture will keep list of all of our Cities, their current culture level, how fast they are gaining culture, a projection of when they will next increase in culture, their current level on the Great Person Bar, how much is being gained on that bar per turn and when that city will produce a Great Person.
Section 5, Sub-Section A changed in its entirety to be more inclusive.



-the Wolf

 

[Provolution]

why no response to my post ?

 

[Swissempire]

Congratulations to the Tri, now lets started critiquiing it to perfection, with the full might of the Civ demogamers!

 

[ravensfire]

I'm starting a review of 5.3 now. I'm looking for inconsistencies and potential troublespots.

For any others that would like to do that same, I would suggest reviewing the judicial logs from the previous DGs. You'll get an idea of the issues that pop up with the rules.

DG VII Judicial Log
DG VI Judicial Log
DG V Judicial Log
DG IV Judicial Log
DG III Judicial Log
DG II Judicial Log
DG I did not have a real judicial log, and in fact links to the DG II log.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Nobody]

why no response to my post ?

Beatiful post Mr Lution, i loved the apart about goverments ect.

 

[Octavian X]

Some comments...

1. Addition and Subtraction of Offices from the Cabinet.
A. To add an Office to the Cabinet requires a Yea vote of 51% of total votes from the Citizens Assembly. Any Office added will be last on the seniority list.
B. To remove an Office from the Cabinet requires a Yea vote of 58% of total votes from the Citizens Assembly.

-It's a nice gesture to us Flexible partisans, but ultimately useless for this government. The positions are too interdependant and will be useful quickly after the game begins, so this provision will never be applied.

-Why give control of naval units to the President? Wouldn't military actions and various invasions be better coordinated if the navy was under the control of the Secretary of War?

-Can we rename 'States' to 'Provinces?' "State" inplies an entiry which exists of its own right, while its clear such instutions of this government are clearly subordinate to the central government, and exist at the government's whim. It's a show of American chauvanism, as a majority of the world's governments use the administrative unit known as a 'province.' 'Province' also fits in more with the Romanesqe theming of this government. There's great potential for confusion with 'The Secretary of State' and 'State of Mobilization.'

On top of all this, there's tradition. We've called those things provinces since before you registered, Alphawolf.

-While we're on the subject, just who the heck decides how many governors to elect? How are they assigned? In the beginning, won't we just have one governor, making him excedingly powerful as the Governor's Council? What about cities without governors?

-Rename the 'Director of Intelligence' to the 'Minister of Intelligence' for goodness sake. If they are all cabinet positions, better to give them all the same titles.

-The Minister of the Interior has an very weak position - he may as well be appointed like Intel - it's just a coordinating job. At least give him the power to decide where wonders are to be constructed, as this is not dealt with anywhere and is a potential source of conflict.

-Can we not cosolidate Section 5? The repetivness is killing me...

-Remove garrison control from the governors! It's asinine to believe that the Secretary of War would do something like intentionally leave a city unprotected. It's better for all things military to be controlled by one command chain, so these important matters can actually be coordinated on a national scale to ensure that they're run properly.

-What's the reasoning for not giving the Triumviriate deputies? For such important leadership posts, you'd think that they would need some form of assistants. Besides, that easily removes the muddled chain of command in the vacancy section - again, these are vital positions that are best left to control of one devoted person, not somebody who has to care for two offices during a vacancy.

-DEFINE VACANCY!!!! Is 'vacant' an office without a holder? A leader who has disappeared for two weeks?

-I do like the position of Censor. This is actually a sort of office I've advocated creating in the past.

 

[ravensfire]

Legislature:

-- Increase the role of the Censor a bit by
1. Censor posts all votes by the Assembly as instructions as needed.
2. Censor posts all official Assembly discussions and polls.
3. For official discussions, require Citizen to post in Censor's thread and be seconded withint 24 hours.
4. For No Confidence/Impeachment votes, require the same standard above, and add some details about it (ie - private poll, last X days, blah, blah, blah).
5. Alternatively, have each Censor post their own procedures for handling official discussions and polls. This has worked extremely well for the Judiciary.

Reasons: Currently, the Censor just doesn't do much, and the Assembly is a bit too chaotic. You can fix both problems by having the Censor be active and responsive to the Assembly. Informal polls and discussions are quite useful, but you want to have something that you KNOW will be official and enforceable.

Likewise, you want some restrictions/requirements on the impeachments. As written, I could post a poll on day 1, calling for the impeachment of the Triumverate. I'll have it last 3 days. On the fourth day, I'll do it again. I'll repeat for the Cabinet. By the ruleset, I am completely within my rights.

HUGE ISSUE - IV sets >50% as the standard for approval. This really should be "the option that gains the most support." Not every decision is binary, and with Abstain, you really never know. Make the requirement more general, so that if there are 4 different proposals, we won't have poll, after poll, after poll.

Executive:

Question - the President can explicitly end a turn chat. Can the DP also do so? Can another leader, post a Stop instruction relevant to their area? Example: Move troops around to prepare for war, STOP after 3 turns so we can finalize plans. Example: Foreign Affairs - halt the chat should any nation declare war on us.

Adding/Removing office. I agree with Octavian, allow the Amendment process to handle this. If it stays, who posts the polls? How long do they last?

Minister of Interior - The plan of improvements, what do you envision this doing? What if a Governor changes their mind?


General:

What happens if a person disappears from the game? Would we have to impeach them because of their absence? Not a bad idea actually, just want to confirm.

Designated Player clause IIIB is incomplete.

Section 5 can really be consolidated!

Section 10.II refers to the Constitution, not Code of Laws ...

Section 10. V - change "the ratification poll is posted." to "the ratification poll is posted by the Judiciary."

-- Ravensfire

 

[Stilgar08]

why no response to my post ?

I think you received no response so far because it would be a major change to include a sec. of Treasury and Industry (was it industry?) and no one wanted to go there... Personally I don't have the urge to implement such a position either (at least not right now). I will support your idea if it turns out such a position is necessary in practice...

why no response to my post ?

Beatiful post Mr Lution, i loved the apart (sic!) about goverments ect.

Cruel, but funny, Mr. Body!

 

[Stilgar08]

Legislature:

-- Increase the role of the Censor a bit by
1. Censor posts all votes by the Assembly as instructions as needed.
2. Censor posts all official Assembly discussions and polls.
3. For official discussions, require Citizen to post in Censor's thread and be seconded withint 24 hours.
4. For No Confidence/Impeachment votes, require the same standard above, and add some details about it (ie - private poll, last X days, blah, blah, blah).
5. Alternatively, have each Censor post their own procedures for handling official discussions and polls. This has worked extremely well for the Judiciary

Sorry, it's early here, so please be patient with me:

Concerning the word "posts" (1.+2.) you mean "open thread" (again, sorry, I'm a bit thick today )

Reasons: Currently, the Censor just doesn't do much, and the Assembly is a bit too chaotic. You can fix both problems by having the Censor be active and responsive to the Assembly. Informal polls and discussions are quite useful, but you want to have something that you KNOW will be official and enforceable.

Sounds good to me! I concur!

HUGE ISSUE - IV sets >50% as the standard for approval. This really should be "the option that gains the most support." Not every decision is binary, and with Abstain, you really never know.

Makes sense to me, too...

Question - the President can explicitly end a turn chat. Can the DP also do so? Can another leader, post a Stop instruction relevant to their area? Example: Move troops around to prepare for war, STOP after 3 turns so we can finalize plans. Example: Foreign Affairs - halt the chat should any nation declare war on us.

I don't know if the DP or tri-members can do so, but I feel they should be able to do so! In an earlier version this was explicitly written in the government-structure...

Question: Will it be necessary to restrict the possibility to "stop"? I feel uneasy about this...

Minister of Interior - The plan of improvements, what do you envision this doing? What if a Governor changes their mind?

I've been critical against the SoI from the start so I agree here. I think the stuff he decides would be in better hands in the president-office.
Is the "plan of improvement" binding or subject to change even during a play-period. I think we should leave the final decision to the gov's if they wanna stick to the plan or not. Public-pressure and the Chief Justice will hopefully ensure stability...

General:

What happens if a person disappears from the game? Would we have to impeach them because of their absence? Not a bad idea actually, just want to confirm.

Do we really need to impeach absent persons ?? I never thought about this, but if a person is absent he's out of the office, no? He must make his absence known to the other players, otherwise he's out? Please enlighten me, I think I'm wrong somewhere...

Stilgar

 

[ravensfire]

Do we really need to impeach absent persons ?? I never thought about this, but if a person is absent he's out of the office, no? He must make his absence known to the other players, otherwise he's out? Please enlighten me, I think I'm wrong somewhere...

The hard part is when they are out of the office. How do you make that call, and who does it? DG VII it's 7 days w/o notice, call made by the Judiciary upon citizen request. It's in the CoL for DG VII.

Couple of scenarios, tell me how it SHOULD be handled, and how the 5.3 ruleset says to handle it.

1. Office holder A is gone for a week, posts in an official absence thread. Deputy exists.

2. Office holder B is gone for a week, does not post in an official absence thread. Deputy exists.

3. Office holder B is gone for 2 weeks this time, does not post in an official absence thread. Deputy does not exist.

4. Office holder C posts instructions for 1 game session, then disappears, never posting again. No deputy exists.

5. Office holder D is perma-banned for saying rude things. No deputy exists.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

A few more thoughts:

Consider bringing in the Freedom of Information section from DG VII Code of Laws - D.1. This requires officials to create official threads, and update them.

Likewise, think about Section J.1 - Polling Standards. It's nice to have a single place to know what requirements there are for polls. Without them, you can easily have biased or misleading polls count as official polls.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Legislature:

-- Increase the role of the Censor a bit by
1. Censor posts all votes by the Assembly as instructions as needed.

This is a good idea.

2. Censor posts all official Assembly discussions and polls.
3. For official discussions, require Citizen to post in Censor's thread and be seconded withint 24 hours.

Sorry, I disagree with both of these items. We don't want to be paralyzed if the Censor is unavailable. If we must have the Censor act as a flapper for the citizen's assembly, make the responsiblity be to request the moderators to do thread cleanup and merges as needed.

4. For No Confidence/Impeachment votes, require the same standard above, and add some details about it (ie - private poll, last X days, blah, blah, blah).

This would better fit a Code of Standards layer, which would make it orthogonal to the existing DG7 setup but with an even higher Constitution on top of the existing one (or dividing the DG7 Constitution into Con and CoL, making some of DG7 CoL into CoS).

5. Alternatively, have each Censor post their own procedures for handling official discussions and polls. This has worked extremely well for the Judiciary.

Reasons: Currently, the Censor just doesn't do much, and the Assembly is a bit too chaotic. You can fix both problems by having the Censor be active and responsive to the Assembly. Informal polls and discussions are quite useful, but you want to have something that you KNOW will be official and enforceable.

This is why I couldn't figure out why the Censor was there in the first place. And I'm still not sure why the Censor should be highest seniority.

Adding/Removing office. I agree with Octavian, allow the Amendment process to handle this. If it stays, who posts the polls? How long do they last?

The way I proposed adding/removing offices was to have the chief executive (either the President or the Tri as a whole) decree the change. If any official affected by the change, or any citizen, objects to the change they can post a non-confirmation poll. If the vote is to not confirm the change, then the offices stay as they are. The change is effective for the current term only unless approved as an amendment. This lets us tinker with changes without making them permanent.

 

[DaveShack]

On the Secretary / Minister of the Interior position:

Someone needs to organize City Specialization. This is critically important in Civ4. In Civ3 we could say city1 produces military, city2 produces workers, city3 is a settler factory, city4 builds wonders, and if we changed our minds midstream it didn't really matter. In Civ4, if you want a city to be a Great People producer, you must designate it as such and stick with the plan. We can't have the governors fighting it out in a free-for-all on this issue. Someone needs to organize things.

Another decision we need centralized is how many of each type of unit to produce. We don't have the military advisor telling us we are stronger or weaker than a neighbor. In my painful experience, the first warning you have that your neighbor is significantly stronger is their SoD crossing the border , at which time it's too late.

 

[DaveShack]

Global comment: Define a majority somewhere as more yes votes than no, and then change all instances of a percentage indicating a majority to the global majority definition. If we got enough citizens, it would be possible to get a majority vote and yet not pass based on the percentages, as they vary. Or just say >50% if you have to use a percentage.

 

[DaveShack]

Let's have the Censor be listed as optional for the first term elections (i.e. no 0th term Censor to preside over term 1 elections), since there is not time to elect a Censor with a full election cycle to preside over another full election cycle.

A volunteer election office can handle this, or the rules committee can take on the responsibility.

IIIB. The Powers and Duties of the Censor:

1. The Censor shall be the Official in charge of all elections.

a. When there is no Censor to preside over the next term's elections, a volunteer Election Office shall be in charge of the election, overseen by the forum Moderators as necessary.
​

2. Censor shall be responsible for the official results of an election and for validating an election.
3. The Censor is also responsible for validating any other official polls.
4. The Censor shall be responsible for maintaining a list of names for the naming of cities, units, and other appraise items, approved by the Citizens Assembly.
​