Will we allow appointments?

[donsig]

Will we allow appointments in DG4? I'm concerned here only with offices that are empowered to post game play instructions (and I include deputies and judiciary members in tha group).

Should we allow leaders to appoint their own deputies after the elections? Should we allow leaders or the president to appoint a new deputy if the current deputy leaves? Should we allow the president (or the Senate?) to appoint leaders when a leader leaves and there is no deputy? If we do not allow for appointments then what method should we use to fill vacancies? Should we have special mid-term elections? Should we just let the President fill in when we have no leader or deputy?

Discussing these questions will help us to write better constitutional articles and a better Code of Laws.

 

[Cyc]

Oh, I get it now, donsig. You're trying to make this Constitutional writing process last as long as your cage match.

What's it been, 15 weeks? And you're already on "Turn 10"? That's amazing progress, donsig...

You are not helping here donsig. I advice everyone to avoid posting in these threads until we work on the CoL.

 

[Charon]

If only for the sake of making the game run smoother I'd say yes, leaders should appoint their own deputies, and other staff members they see fit, for that matter.
True, this means the people may end up with an acting leader that was not elected by the second greatest majority for the position- but it is someone who was personally picked by the person elected.
What this means is that when you vote for a leader you vote confidence not only in his abilities to set the sliders right, or manage the best deals, but also in his motives and judgement when appointing his deputy and staff.
I agree with the suggestion that a leader will state who he's going to appoint deputy before the elections. However should the deputy leave his position for any reason the leader should be able to replace him personally.
I'm not sure what's the law about this currently, but in order th fire his deputy a leader should require some external mandate. Meaning that a leader can't just swap through deputies when it suits him, and he cannot run for position with someone stated as his deputy and a day after the elections fire his deputy and hire someone else.

 

[Charon]

*cough cough*... What's this about then? I was writing my own post while Cyc posted his...

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Charon
*cough cough*... What's this about then? I was writing my own post while Cyc posted his...

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Charon
*cough cough*... What's this about then? I was writing my own post while Cyc posted his...

This is about whether we want to use the appointment process at all in DG4. It was not used at all in DG3 but the expedient we did use was not popular and I for one do not want to see it carried over to DG4. Rather than revert back to using appointments I thought it might be productive to have a discussion to explore other possibilities and hopefully have a poll to make a decision on the matter.

In DG3 when we lost a leader the deputy took over and the third place candidate from the previous election became deputy. This could even extend to the fourth place candidate, etc., if those above him or her were gone or otherwise occupied.

In DG2 (IIRC) we had a system where deputies could be appointed.

I'm not sure what we did back in DG1. I seem to recall that we flirted with special elections.

Since this is a demogame I feel very strongly that all our leaders / deputies should be elected. In all three demogames the deputy has been the runner up in the election. I see nothing wrong with a candidate choosing his or her deputy before the election thus allowing us to elect them as a pair. Since we are also now talking about opening up the nomination threads to be used as debate / campaign threads we'd have a great vehicle to use for discussing particular *running mates*.

It may also happen that a particular office loses both the leader and deputy at the same time. Should we allow the president or senate to appoint replacements? I'm inclined to say *no*. The DP is responsible for making any decisions that need to be made in the absence of posted game play instructions. If a department empties out then the pres can fill in until the next term.

 

[ravensfire]

I'll wait for a week on this issue - got other ones that must be dealt with.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

We should just let Uncontested Leaders be able to apoint Deputies. End of story. Lets move on and discuss on important matters.

 

[donsig]

Thank you ravensfire and CivGeneral for your valuable input.

 

[zorven]

To the basic question of this thread "Will we allow appointments?":

I tend to think that any person that can post game play instructions should be elected. Therefore appointments would not be the way to go unless done in the "running mate" method in which case they would have been elected.

I believe any further discussion on vacancies and such can be dealt with in the CoL.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

donsig, this is important and part of the reason I wanted to pursue a "cart before the horse" approach by getting ideas for the CoL somewhat fleshed out before drafting our Constitution. You chided me for this, yet are now holding up the process by doing the exact same thing.

The simple fact is, people don't want to have the same discussion twice. And that is what we will do if get into too much detail here.

I, for one, am for appointments. I left a synopsis of how things could work with appointments and elections, and it pretty much got ignored.

At this point, I am beyond caring. Let the people decide every little thing if you must. This coming from the man who spent most of Term 3 trying to justify a myriad of controversial decisions based on one poll -- his election to the Presidency. Yet we shouldn't trust our leaders, elected by the people, to choose suitable deputies and hopefully help new members gain experience? Preposterous.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
donsig, this is important and part of the reason I wanted to pursue a "cart before the horse" approach by getting ideas for the CoL somewhat fleshed out before drafting our Constitution. You chided me for this, yet are now holding up the process by doing the exact same thing.

The simple fact is, people don't want to have the same discussion twice. And that is what we will do if get into too much detail here.

I, for one, am for appointments. I left a synopsis of how things could work with appointments and elections, and it pretty much got ignored.

At this point, I am beyond caring. Let the people decide every little thing if you must. This coming from the man who spent most of Term 3 trying to justify a myriad of controversial decisions based on one poll -- his election to the Presidency. Yet we shouldn't trust our leaders, elected by the people, to choose suitable deputies and hopefully help new members gain experience? Preposterous.

My dear friend Donovan Zoi, I do not want to have the discussion twice either. And I am not putting the cart before the horse. The constitution is meant to embody certain gerneral principles. The code of laws is meant to detail the actual workings of said general principles. I am trying to establish which general principle we want for DG4 as far as appointments are concerned. I do not care if we go into detail here or not. All I want to establish is whether the people playing this demogame want to have vacancies filled by appointment or not. We make that decision then write the corresponding article so that it will either call for appointments or forbid them as per said decision. Then when we write the CoL, rather then talking about whether we will have appointments or not and then writing the rules for filling vacancies we will just write the rules for appointemts or special elections and be done with it.

So without having to click on your link can you tell me whether you want appointments or not?

 

[Cyc]

You see, DZ. This is donsigism. Not only is he tying up the current process, he is doing it in a manner by which he chided you earlier for. He will continue to roadblock any discussion on the Constitution until it's too late to have any time to move through it properly. By that time we will have to rush through the CoL (luckily we'll have donsig to help us out by making all the quick laws), plus there will be no time for the CoS (which donsig has stated earlier that he does not want). Funny how that works out.

What a waste of time.

 

[donsig]

So, my good friend Cyc - are you for appointments or against them?

Suggested poll:

Should we allow appoinments in DG4?

Yes
No
Abstain

insert discussion link here

This poll will remian open for four days.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

So without having to click on your link can you tell me whether you want appointments or not?

If you look a bit to the left of my link, I state it very clearly. Yes, I am for appointments! I believe that Cyc has stated the same thing...several times.

Go ahead, post the poll and I will instruct that no one boycott the poll. This is getting tiresome.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

Go ahead, post the poll and I will instruct that no one boycott the poll. This is getting tiresome.

Why thank you for your magnanimity. Your desire to hold intelligent discussions on relevant topics is truly astounding for a moderator.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Don't go there, donsig. I had wanted to hold these discussions weeks ago, and you wanted to jump right into the Constitution. You even had me convinced that this was the way to go.

Now, we are at a standstill because you are against appointments at all costs. The good news is that I believe the emerging winner may allow appointments in the CoL, if we are careful with our wording.

While admittedly curt, I think that my solution is more than fair. Heck, I'll even throw in 24 hours of discussion and post a link to this thread in the current Article G poll. I will not do the same for the other thread you opened recently, as I feel that topic is not necessary for our Constitution. You will have to grant me that concession.

Sound fair?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Don't go there, donsig. I had wanted to hold these discussions weeks ago, and you wanted to jump right into the Constitution. You even had me convinced that this was the way to go.

Now, we are at a stand still because you are against appointments at all costs. The good news is that I believe the emerging winner may allow appointments in the CoL, if we are careful with our wording.

While admittedly curt, I think that my solution is more than fair. Heck, I'll even throw in 24 hours of discussion and post a link to this thread in the current Article G poll. I will not do the same for the other thread you opened recently, as I feel that topic is not necessary for our Constitution. You will have to grant me that concession.

Sound fair?

If you truly wanted to hold a discussion on appointments versus elections and I prevented that then I apologize. As far as I'm concerned this discussion (and a few others) are an integral part of writing the constitution. Thank you for posting a link in the article G poll. As for the other thread I would like ot point out that it is relevant to a good constitution though none of this is necessary for a constitution. Since you said I have to grant you that concession I will assume you are putting your modly powers into play here even though you did not post in red or some other nice color.

Anyway, it seems this poll shouldn't be posted until tomorrow to give people a chance to respond, right?

As for being at a standstill, I think we are not. May I suggest that since we already have an article or two ratified, that we could possibly start discussing some of the CoL sections related to those already agreed upon articles.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by donsig


If you truly wanted to hold a discussion on appointments versus elections and I prevented that then I apologize. As far as I'm concerned this discussion (and a few others) are an integral part of writing the constitution. Thank you for posting a link in the article G poll. As for the other thread I would like ot point out that it is relevant to a good constitution though none of this is necessary for a constitution. Since you said I have to grant you that concession I will assume you are putting your modly powers into play here even though you did not post in red or some other nice color.

You are correct, but I based my decision on the beating it is taking in the Article G poll.

I had actually wanted to hold discussions on a myriad of topics, and while "appointments vs. elections" wasn't a scheduled topic by itself, I am sure that it would have been mentioned soon enough.

Originally posted by donsig
Anyway, it seems this poll shouldn't be posted until tomorrow to give people a chance to respond, right?

24 hours from my post in the Article G poll thread sounds good, no?

Originally posted by donsig
As for being at a standstill, I think we are not. May I suggest that since we already have an article or two ratified, that we could possibly start discussing some of the CoL sections related to those already agreed upon articles.

The DG4 forums are opening tomorrow, so to lessen the confusion I would like to wait until Friday to begin. I still have to update the Progress Indicator, as well as finish formatting it. Once that is done, you can feel free to start any available discussion that I do not.

 

[donsig]

Should we allow appointments in DG4? Please vote!