 |
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
What Epistax said.
Plus, I think an additional, separate COL is needed.
1) To govern the C3DG online Community (what we have so far). Governs things like polling, ministers, elections, etc... Amended by 2/3 requirement.
2) To govern the actual in-game world (non-existent, we only have "official polls" on such things like Case Pink/Teal, Plan Eagle, Plan Gold which are then generally accepted by unwritten convention but nowhere is it required to be followed despite heavy public support. Other examples of what could become ingame laws: Ban on Sneak Attacks, Pop-rush policy, Minimum Treasury Balance, ROP policy, MPP policy, Nuke policy, etc...) Passed by 50% + 1 vote.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
A small reform I deem important :
We get rid of the Imperial Expansion minister 17th September. We'll very probably have no land to grab with settlers by then. The control of potential settlers should go to the minister of Public Works IMO, or perhaps the city planner.
Now, bigger reforms :
I'd like to point out a very important thing. Our government structure should be completely different whether we continue doing turnchats, or if we now do turnthreads.
I If we do turnchats
Indeed, in turnchats, things go fast for the officials (even if it doesn't look like it). That's why we shouldn't give too much power to ministers if we play turnchats : I remember a chat when I was Economist, FAM and city planner all at once. Without Aggie's and Epistax's suggestions, my job would have been poor on these areas, because I had no tme to look at every detail.
If we are to continue with turnchats, I suggest we continue like it has begun. Maybe we should merge ministries which take very little time, if there is such a thing.
You could say "but ministers can plan ahead". Sure, they can. If they'll actually do it is unsure : just look at how many officials simply resign. How many will be involved enough to plan ? We shouldn't be utopic if we want our future structure to work.
II Now, if we do turnthreads systematically
Big ministries are good, but only if ministers have to listen to people's feedback for any reason. If not, we'll have superpowerful ministers who could lead a wrong policy, without listening to others.
If we do turnthreads, big ministries are viable because ministers will have time to look at details before issuing their decisions.
However, one or more aides should be mandatory for a "super mnister" candidate to run : if a superminister leaves for a turnthread (and we can't predict what RL prepares us), his absence will be extremely bad : just imagine our domestic minister must miss a turnthread : it's like having Public works + city planner + Science + Economy missing. Deputies should have a true power, and really be teammates with the minister, not underlings
(well technically, deputies are underlings and must abide by the minister's decisions. But they should help him, and give documented advice whenever the need arises. When the minister can't attend the turnthread, the deputy has a complete power over the ministry).
If we are to make a smaller cabinet, I think Uber's decisions are pretty good :
Empire level
- War minister decides strategies, has an absolute power on all units, except settlers and workers.
- Domestic minister gets to decide what should be built in cities (with the help of governors), what the workers do (ditto : in my idea, governors have control over their workers, but the city planner can overrirde their orders, and can distribute workers among provinces as he wants), where settlers go, what to research next.
- Foreign advisor has power on agreements and trades. He isn't required to ask other ministers before making a trade, but asking would be better.
- President and VP play phisically the game. They make sure the forum goes fine, and everybody has the info he needs in conveniently placed threads. They do the chores of presidency, as per our constitution. One of them has to attend discussion chats (if such a thing exists). They also decide on the budget repartition, if the people didn't do so (through an official poll).
Local level :
Every minister can appoint small-scale aides like he wants (for example, the War minister appoints a commander for the Gaia area). He gives them as much power as he wants in the boundaries of his ministry : for example, commanders under the orders of a control freak will only be able to write reports. Commanders under someone more lax will have right to move units. Minister (or his main deputy, if the minister isn't here) can overrife any decision taken by his aides.
The only elected local people are province governors : they decide how to manage their citizens, what to build in their cities, how to use workers under their control. Their orders can be overriden by the domestic minister any time.
Province governors have to abide with general strategies for the country (building units for the far away war, rather than temples, building a locally useless road rather than clearing jungle now). They also have to send complete information to the Domestic ministry, in case it disagrees with some orders.
People :
Every citizen can set up a poll on any policy subject, whatever the impact. If such a poll follows the rules of official polls, the cabinet has to abide with the results, whatever it thinks.
With this, the people have an absolute power, if they decide to take it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Hurrah! Constitutional debate back in style! and begun by the "I hate this talk of CoL' crowd! Finally, I can let it all out........
I have been calling for a whole new sytem for a longtime- first with a legislature to hold ministers accountable for the people's need, and then with governors- I like governors more, since they woul be more in tune with the game, though I think we do need somee sort of legislature, so let me spell it all out:
The Executive: 4 people: President, Ministers of War, State, Interior. (I now agree treasury is porbaly not needed)
The Judicial: 5 member court
The legislative: 4 people: The Vice president and 3 senators
Total number of elected members in central gov. 8, since judges not elected.
Local gov. Governors, number unknown, also elected.
Powers of each, what they do in turhctas, turnthreads.
Executive:
The president plays the game-if he/she can't, responsibility goes to the VP. President can take action according to what they feel is best for the state is Ministers and governors have not left orders.
The Ministers: Ministers make central level plans for the state: they have the power to overrule governors when they feel they must in order to carry out civ-level plans. Ministers must leave orders for the president to follow- the president must follow orders as given.
Judicial: same as today- figure out CoL debates
Legislative:
The VP shall play the game if the president can't.
The legislature control Official polling- has the power to create in gama regulation, which Ministers must follow- the CoL shall include no in game regulation- they will be made by the Legislature after holding official polls of the populace (issues like which victory to aim for, tax policy, pop-rushing, declarations of war, making treaties, nuclear policy, so forth can change over time if the people want ti to change without needing a change in CoL, which should only deal with the government maeup and divisions of power)
Governors: Governors shall be elcted by the all the people in open elections. Governors control city queues, local garrisons, local workers- are instructed with the safe and efficiant handling of the cities they have been given control of. Governors must follow the outcomes of in game legislation and must also follow the orders of Ministers. Governors must leave orders for the President to follow.Governors may hold unoffical polls about what their actions will be.
Issues and questions:
Why a legialture?: This is something many people are ignoring, which was first brought up in the ethics debate. Wen we pay the game as individuals, we all play with a certain set of vaues (in the general sense) that inform our game. Since many are playing this dem game, we need a way of distilling our collective values in playing this game in a binding way- how should we handle pop-rushing? Should individual government officials do it any time they feel its needed? In most other proposed systems this notion- of distilling our collective values into action is igonored, for perhaps we assume such things won't be issues, but they will be, and we need a way to have this issues resolved quickly, efficiantly and in a satisfactory and official way. I also want to limit the scope and shape of the CoL so that discussions on such issued don't become constitutional debates, just legislative ones.
Turnchats or turnthreads? I think if we have a smaller government, were responsibilities are clearly laid out, and where lapses in them are quickly corrected- by being more harsh with impeachments and getting replacemenst for absent members post haste- we could keep having turnchats- I don' think ministers wil be able to give detailed orders, nor should they- those sorts of details will come from Governors, who will handle smaller portions of the whole. BUt if this become difficult anyway, then by all means, lest do turnthreads. One way to do them is for the president to announce how many turns he/she will play (or this could be a legislative issue), then all the governors and ministers write down in the thread their orders, first governors and then ministers, since minister orders overrule governor ones.
Role of the citizen: with a legislative and governors, i feel the average citizen would have a greater say, since they can both make pushes for their localities (if each province wishes to have a local CoL, fine) and with a legislative, they can have their voices heard in the central government.
This is a very general plan, which for a thread such as this, is best. Many people will dislaike it, fine, but I do ask that people keep in mind the many, many issues we have to confront, and how will we confront them. How much shall be in the CoL: rewriting it will take a long time and we have to be ready for that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Skywalker: you better than most know that the government doesn't need to follow citizen posts. You would have to written in the CoL that the government MUST follow the results of any poll created- otherwise this is no solution at all. And that solution brings up all sorts of problems.
Another thing- we don't have a bureocracy at all- government is not the same thing as a bureocracy. If we had that much debate it was not because it was in the rulebook, but because it wasn't, or at least because who should move the unit when the person reposnsible is abcenst is not clear. If we had debate is because bno one said- hey, this is what will be done, period, since its my responsibility. and that was not done because no one had a clue about doing that. Lets take what you brought up during the chat:
Timeline created a nice, simple thread saying: hey, I will play a turnchat on 3pm EST on tuesday. Most people saw it, SirRalph even created a second thread telling everyone about it again. Isn't that a nice, simple, common sense, non-bureaocratic action? A citizen just took the time to make a public announcement that ayone could see,and many did. Why have somehting as simple as when a turnchat will appen by slowed down by bureocratiuc concers about clear postings in one specific place and time so everyone an always see it there and not worry about missing the threads of someone else? You didn't see timelines thread because yo expect there to be procedure about announcing when turchats will be- expecting that procedure is xpecting rules and regulations.
I always see you skywalker demanding more common sense and less rules, less regulations: BUt you are also the one I always see complaining that people have done something ignoring regulation, ignoring polls, and so forth- things they did according to their 'common sense' (which of course, does not ahppen to be yours). You can't have it both ways skywalker. To use the turnchat exampla again: the one way to stop what hapened yesterday would be to create a law about posting in a clear place when a turnchat will occur, and creating a mechanism to hold people responsible if they ignore it, all which is a call for greater, not less, regulation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
I was there also, and the only thing different yesterday was that no one was willing to take punkbass's job quickly and make the decisions. That was the big difference.
Let me add somehting else: there has never been there isn't, nor shall there ever be something called "COMMON SENSE" When one sees a man beating his wife, what should one do? a. Interfere, b. call the police, c. keep moving? If there was such a thing as common sense, then the answer to that wold be simple and objective and obvious: but it is not.
Every two witnesses to the same occurence (like you and I and the thurchat) see two different things- becuase one's sense are the most subjective thing of all, simply for that reason, there is not common sense whatsoever. How many people were at the turnchat? and how many woudl agree with what the 'common sense' solution would be? Clearly you and I don't agree, throw in Spffor, Timeline, OPD, epistax, Apocalypse, Uber, Good-Fella, Ninot, and anyone else who was there, and all consensus breaks down immidiately- we have no 'common sense' about what happened yesterday- why would we have any more 'common sense' abvout anything else? What is clear and obvious to you is not to me, and vice-versa. Thus, any system built upon the illusion that we can get consensus without a good rulebook will FAIL and fail utterly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
To institute ourselves as the legislature, we would need to implement various rules about citizenship, about census, I mean, you say every month- that would be a hastle every month, so forth. In short, trying to make us the legislature woul mean a very large number of things in the CoL that would have to be written. If what we seek is simplicity, I think having a group to moderate the debate and then have the power to make the debate official and bindding would require less lines in the CoL and have less chances of controversy, which is what I think we all want. It might also be simpler to implement and easier to sell to the general public, all pluses. I am not opposed to your notion- I just don't see a simple way of implementing it, thus, getting it approved would be harder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
GePap :
We had exchanged some PMs about this legislature thing, and I think my solution is much better than yours :
quote:
The People
Every citizen can set up a poll on any policy subject, whatever the issue. If such a poll follows the rules of officiality, the cabinet has to abide with the results, whatever it thinks.
With this, the people have an absolute power, if they decide to take it. |
I don't see any reason for us to restrict the right to make polls to a small circle (namely the senators). Everybody should be allowed to do so, as it is explicitely stated already.
Restricting tthis right will make the game less democratic and fun, not more.
Edit : I'd like to remind that an official poll isn't always an amendment to the CoL, and doesn't always need a 2/3 majority. Latest official polls I've made (tech-whoring, Plan Gold) would have won with only 51% of votes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Spiffor: the reason I don't like such a systme is a: the possibility for abuse and b. difficualty of implementation.
On a. I would love to trust the good judgement of everyone here, but its not a practical thing to do. If citizens can force certain actions of ministers, what of governors, what of both? And are all topics open to discussion?
On issue b. : to a certain extent, other citizens may simply ignore such threads- how many votes would it need to pass, what choices must it include, what if the poster forgot one thing or another? There are too many places for simple mistakes to invite questions about validity by those who might oppose the outcome, sepcially on such issues as the victory condition to aim for.
When thinking about a future system we have to think not oly on how they might work under ptimal circumstances, but how might they work under the worst circumstances. We can't imagine everywhere were it might go wrong, but I can imagine enough problems with the 'let evryone make official polls' option to think that long term, it will bring more harm and grief than good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
GePap : I don't think so, because only the most involved players will care enough to set up official polls. we could have seen this past 2 legislations : only very active players used their right.
By limiting this right, we risk to let some involved players out of the loop, for whatever reasons (they're justices, they don't have enough time or don't want to be senators etc.).
As for the census : I think we should let as it is. A minimum of 3 days lets enough time for Apolytonians to vote on the matter, except those who are away for a long time. Those who don't want to vote won't affect our policy. They will technically do the same as not playing at all, or not being senators in your idea.
If a poll only gets 10 answers, while being official, let it be so. It means the question doesn't interest anybody. Still the small minority who voted has its say. No doubt every involved player and minister will have voted there. We'd then have the views of some would-be senators, and the cabinet.
And important matters such as the victory we strive for should DEFINITELY not be let to a small elected circle.
Maybe we differ, because I don't believe in the concept of an "enlightened elite". That's why I think a senate would be bad.
The best advice I can give you on this is to make an unofficial (but neutral) poll about how people feel with this idea. If landlide majority is against, I think we should stop thinking about it in our government reform.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Spiffor:
NEVER have I said that only the senators would vote on the issue. The senators are there to moderate, regulate, and validate:
The senators have the power to start officila polls on in-game policy, but they could only do it after a senate vote- hence the number of polls is kept down, to only issues seen as vital, this is the moderate.
The senators would vote among themselves about the choices, ansd what choices are needed in the poll and so forth- this is to lessesn the possibility of mistakes and also to try to create unbiased questions: this is the regulate.
After the poll is created and debated- and the poll questions should be debated as part of the debate itself, so that an actual, you can vote on it poll, comes at the end of the debate, the senators would validate it. because the debate on in-game policy (nothing at all, whatsoever to do with the CoL as written), the ministers and governors, and any other government officials, including the senators themselves, would be bound by it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkness' Edge
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't see any reason for us to restrict the right to make polls to a small circle (namely the senators). Everybody should be allowed to do so, as it is explicitely stated already.
Restricting tthis right will make the game less democratic and fun, not more.
Edit : I'd like to remind that an official poll isn't always an amendment to the CoL, and doesn't always need a 2/3 majority. Latest official polls I've made (tech-whoring, Plan Gold) would have won with only 51% of votes. |
Thank you. Especially with reduced ministers, it's vital that the people retain the right to vote in every poll. Otherwise, this game is going to become less democratic, and certainly less fun.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 21:14
|