08-02-2003 03:31									#1
	Constitution Ratification Full PM-box? Change here!

Originally posted by donegeal
A. The Consuls

1. Three Citizens shall be elected as Consuls.
   a. Initial elections will occur upon ratification of this Constitution.
   b. There will be an opportunity to nominate the Consuls, and then an election, where the 3 people with the most manual ballots are chosen as Consuls.
   
2. The Consuls have the authority to play the game.
   
3. The Consuls have the authority to make final game decisions, but must act within the boundaries of the law.
   
4. The Consuls should follow legal minister orders unless forced by unforseen circumstances.
   
5. One Consul shall be appointed President.
   
6. The Consuls have the power to rule on senatorial disputes in a manner they see fit.
   
7. Consuls may only be removed from office by a vote of No-Confidence.
   
8. The Consuls appoint Ministers.

	08-02-2003 03:34									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

Btw, Togas, I kept it at simple majority because if it was 2/3rds I would have to change NoCon to 2/3rds, and then we'd never get any fresh blood in the government.

	08-02-2003 03:49									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

Well, Thud, if you were the first vote, I was the second.

Great document by the way!! Hats off to Thud, Togas, Tiberius, BFM, and Donegal and others involved. Its effective, simple, flexible, and enabling. It should allow us to harness the incredible civ3 firepower intrinsic to this team.

And as you have stated elsewhere - let's roll!!

	08-02-2003 04:12									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yes, I wouldn't want to take the credit for this. Everyone who bothered to get involved in the discussion, thanks. Especially Donegeal who took to time to format it.

Btw, a straight republic is an idea Togas proposed, where we elect someone directly who plays the game, and there are no further constitutional rules. Look in the discussion thread for more details.

	08-02-2003 09:16									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Thud - now that you have the new avatar, I wanna change my vote!!!! Waaay too scary to have this guy as the Hancock of our consitution....

	08-02-2003 19:04									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Don't worry, once this is ratified and I'm elected Consul I'll change it to Napoleon.

	08-02-2003 19:06									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I like the Constitution, but why is the rush to ratify it?

What I'm missing from it is the possibility to name deputy ministers, to help overwhelmed ministers (the Minister of Interior will certainly need one). Of course, this can be done in an ammendment, but again: why's the rush?

	08-02-2003 20:04									#8
	Remove this text

I would raise the percentage to aprove laws to 2/3, but since the original draft has already been changed from the monthly elections to the no-con vote I am giving a "yes" to it. You cannot win always!

	08-02-2003 20:25									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hi Thud - can I impose upon you or someone else to run the electons for the Consul positions, unless of course there is a rush of votes against this approach. Thanks.

(out of curiosity, and it may have been discussed, why are the Minsiter's appointed and not elected? I appreciate that it allows the president to have a ministerial team that he has chosen and can see eye-to-eye with, and this by itself is a compelling reason.)

	08-02-2003 22:09									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

No. The sections detailing Ministers' broad areas of duty are good, but the Senate thing.... again with the Senate thing! We don't need it, especially not this early on.

I am all for the idea that - if we want someone out, or someone else wants in, we hold a poll and decide. Why nail this down? We don't need to be told what we have to do here beyond stating the options clearly on the first post and having a poll open 2-3 days. Some of these options are a bit obvious too. Look, I admire the hard work that goes into these things, but I think most of it is not quite placed where the work needs to be placed. The larger a document is (and this is pretty large for a game we haven't come near starting yet), the less likely people are to read it. Let's get rid of the extraneous parts and just vote on the absolute basics. Screw the Senate, screw laws - let's just work together.

	08-02-2003 22:34									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

Well, I appointed them because a) the Consuls aren't required to listen to the Ministers, so they have no real power, and b) we didn't want elections for consuls, so I assumed we wouldn't want them for Ministers.

One of the little irregularites is that the Constitution doesn't directly provide for amendments. There is a roundabout way to do this- simply pass a law not allowing the Consuls to appoint Ministers, and then pass a law establishing Minister elections. The Senate has the power to prevent the Consuls from doing anything, so this is legal. The whole point of the Senate Law thing is that the Constitution gives a lot of leeway to the Consuls, and if we don't like that we can restrict the Consular power.

As for creating the election thread for Consul, I would be happy to do so. I actually would defer my candidacy for a month, as I don't have my PtW with me, but that just makes me more impartial.

As for why I pushed this out the door so quickly- 3 days for ratification, and then probably a week for elections, leaves us with just a few days for the government to set itself up, appoint ministers and ambassadors and so forth. We need those few days.

	08-02-2003 23:49									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I am to lazy to read it over. SO in closing i vote for the majority.

	09-02-2003 04:32									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: As for why I pushed this out the door so quickly- 3 days for ratification, and then probably a week for elections, leaves us with just a few days for the government to set itself up, appoint ministers and ambassadors and so forth. We need those few days.

We could hold elections without a ratified Constitution. We could agree on the basic details, agree that we are going to have 3 consuls and 4 ministers and elect them. In the meantime (and even after that) we could refine/finetune the Constitution and avoid coming back over and over again for ammendments about tiny details we forgot. The elections are less important than the Constitution, IMHO. We don't even need ministers for the early turns; only the Directory (Consuls).

	09-02-2003 06:52									#14
	Re: Constitution Ratification Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Thud Originally posted by donegeal a. A Bill must be proposed by a Senator, and clearly state the purpose in the first post, and have the following options for a poll: yea or nay. ... c. All bills must be open for at least 48 hours.

I don't understand this: the normal bills are open for 48 hours and have but 2 options: yes or no, while the NoCon votes are open for but 36 hours and have 3 options:

quote: c. A vote must have the three options of yea, nay or abstain. d. A vote must be open for at least 36 hours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote: a. Any Senator may propose a NoCon vote. b. The Senator must state the person he is intending to remove from office, and the person he intends to replace him with, in the first post. ... f. A vote will pass with a simple majority, 50% plus 1. g. Any Consul, Minister, or official appointed by the Consulate is subject to a vote of No-Confidence.[/list] It takes a majority of any option to win. This poll will last 72 hours.

Second thing: I fully agree with the NoCon vote, I missed it in the New Con of the C3DG, but why should the senator also state a new person to replace the old person in office? I assume that the senator who proposes a NoCon vote only has the intention to remove some person, who he thinks does not funcion well, from office.

I propose that the existing two consuls prepare for the election of ONE new consul to replace the one removed from office. If a minister is removed this way, the consuls can appoint a new minister.

If the consuls feel responsible too for the actions the consul that is about to be removed is accused for, they should have the right to resign from office. The same counts for ministers, but I think it will affect them in a lesser way than to the consuls as they all can be held resposible for faillures of one of them particular.

Resigning from office should not be seen as admitting a crime against the nation, but just as taking responsibility when one feels that the majority of the senate does no longer support him.

If the three consuls resign together, the ministers act as interim-consuls and their task is to prepare new elections. They act as consuls in a way that they govern the nation, but may not propose any new laws until new Consuls are being elected, unless the nation is in serious danger.
The senate has to confirm all actions the ministers do when they are acting consuls.


I further suggest that when the three consuls agree that the nation is in serious danger, they should be able to act without any senate intervention. The consuls should have the right to take decisions on their own, bu have to INFORM the senate of these decisions.

One moer suggestion: don't allow NoCon votes when the nation is in serious danger, it weakens the government. This is no problem in peace-time, but in war time or in a time of a threat of war, un experienced consuls, ministers etc are of no use and the consuls/ministers that are about to be removed for what reason ever can serve serve the nation better than unexperienced new consuls/ministers.

Please insert a line in the Constitution, if you agree with these suggestions, that if the senate considers that the threat of seious danger is over, it can set the situation back to normal. If you leave this up to the consuls, thy can change our republic into a aristocracy and that is not what we want I don't expect the people here to be craving for power however .

Aidun

	09-02-2003 07:01									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt No. The sections detailing Ministers' broad areas of duty are good, but the Senate thing.... again with the Senate thing! We don't need it, especially not this early on.

Why MWiA? It seems to me to just be polling standards dressed up in slightly different clothes. What difference does it make?

	09-02-2003 07:59									#16
	Suffering from ads?

I vehemently disagree with anyone being excluded from anything in these games, and giving the Senators abilities that the Consuls don't have is just plain silly. The Consuls will by definition be far more active than most Senators. We shouldn't restrict them, likely our top strategists and participants, from doing what needs to be done. If the lazy populace wants to start a poll or pose an issue, fine. But we shouldn't have to rely on non-elected members for this!

That is but a minor quibble though. My main concern is that setting that much down in a "Senate" section opens it up to amendments. And extensions. And far more legalese than I am ever comfortable reading. Let's keep it simple - what is there is OK, but when put like that it is almost certain to spawn something as horrific as the Civ3 SPDG NewCon.

Yes to polling standards, no to any mention of "Senators" or their having any special abilities.

	09-02-2003 10:24									#17
	Re: Re: Constitution Ratification Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Aidun Second thing: I fully agree with the NoCon vote, I missed it in the New Con of the C3DG, but why should the senator also state a new person to replace the old person in office? I assume that the senator who proposes a NoCon vote only has the intention to remove some person, who he thinks does not funcion well, from office.

This is done for the sake of continuality. If some one were to call a No-Con vote and it succeeds with no one named to replace the person, then the position is just unfilled. Having someone there to do the job poorly is better then not having someone there at all. So naming a replacement is a way to make the transition smoother.

	09-02-2003 12:12									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt I vehemently disagree with anyone being excluded from anything in these games, and giving the Senators abilities that the Consuls don't have is just plain silly. The Consuls will by definition be far more active than most Senators. We shouldn't restrict them, likely our top strategists and participants, from doing what needs to be done. If the lazy populace wants to start a poll or pose an issue, fine. But we shouldn't have to rely on non-elected members for this!

Well, I would just slightly change the wording, making ALL of the team members Senators, and three of them Consuls. That would give the Consuls exactly the same rights as Senators have (like initiating bills, No-Con votes etc). Otherwise, I can see no problem in what is proposed, it seems to me that everything in the draft is well thought out and quite likely to work.

I agree that the No-Con procedure should involve proposing the replacement for the person being removed from office.

	09-02-2003 19:57									#19
	Re: Re: Constitution Ratification Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Aidun Second thing: I fully agree with the NoCon vote, I missed it in the New Con of the C3DG, but why should the senator also state a new person to replace the old person in office?

Because is too easy to make criticism without proposing any alternative. If you don't like how he is doing that's because you have a better idea in mind. So propose yourself for the charge. Otherwise, if you don't have anything constructive to opose to what the consul is doing, keep quiet.

And I agree with the consuld being also senators.

	09-02-2003 21:29									#20
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I don't understand this: the normal bills are open for 48 hours and have but 2 options: yes or no, while the NoCon votes are open for but 36 hours and have 3 options

Sorry about the 2 options and 3 options, that originated from a typo. I hope nobody will mind if I take out the abstain option in the NoCon. As for 36 hours, I felt that 48 hours might be too long in certain situations, and that the next turn might already have arrived in that time. Still, people can post 48 hour NoCons if they want to include more people.

As for your other concerns, remember that this is a Constitution to get us up and running. Through the course of a month or two, we will learn what the optimal balance of power between those that play and those that don't is, and we will most likely draw up a different Constitution. As for the Senate restricting the Consuls too much, I don't beleive that this will be a problem. My guess is that it will only be used to prevent the Consuls from doing something like declaring war on a certain civ. I dunno, but I don't seem to think the Senate will bill on even a weekly basis.

	09-02-2003 21:56									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Great work, Thud! Glad to see you included most of my work, which was in turn based upon yours.

I foresee slight problems with constructions like "the consuls need to follow the law" and "unforeseen circumstances", but that will have to be worked out later.

The most important thing is that we create a government that has some real power, while at the same time is democratically chosen.

	10-02-2003 01:24									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt I vehemently disagree with anyone being excluded from anything in these games, and giving the Senators abilities that the Consuls don't have is just plain silly. The Consuls will by definition be far more active than most Senators. We shouldn't restrict them, likely our top strategists and participants, from doing what needs to be done. If the lazy populace wants to start a poll or pose an issue, fine. But we shouldn't have to rely on non-elected members for this! That is but a minor quibble though. My main concern is that setting that much down in a "Senate" section opens it up to amendments. And extensions. And far more legalese than I am ever comfortable reading. Let's keep it simple - what is there is OK, but when put like that it is almost certain to spawn something as horrific as the Civ3 SPDG NewCon. Yes to polling standards, no to any mention of "Senators" or their having any special abilities.

re the Consuls and proposing polls/laws. That might be a good ammendment.

re 'that other game', and simplicity. I agree with you that we need to keep things simple. I believe Togas does as well. You might say that we were 2 of the bigger proponents of the Constitution in 'that other game'. There were reasons for most every word Togas set to paper. Does it not bode well that neither of us see the need for that much complexity here?

	10-02-2003 01:37									#23
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I've been out of town and don't have time to read this at the moment... I'll have to come back to it later. Sounds like we're already well on the way to at least SOME system of organization, though. Good job, Thud

	10-02-2003 01:52									#24
	Re: Re: Re: Constitution Ratification Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by donegeal This is done for the sake of continuality. If some one were to call a No-Con vote and it succeeds with no one named to replace the person, then the position is just unfilled. Having someone there to do the job poorly is better then not having someone there at all. So naming a replacement is a way to make the transition smoother.

quote: Originally posted by oliverfa Because is too easy to make criticism without proposing any alternative. If you don't like how he is doing that's because you have a better idea in mind. So propose yourself for the charge. Otherwise, if you don't have anything constructive to opose to what the consul is doing, keep quiet. And I agree with the consuld being also senators.

My problem with this rule is that it makes it more difficult to replace a consul. If you have a commet but no solution, the vote will not ger a majority vote and will be defeated. It is fairer to let te existing two consuls continue governing and prepare a the election of a new consul. As all people can join into elections, but only the accusing senators friends will be appointed by him to run for consul.
It's also a lot more easier to have people running for an election that to have to find someone who can run for consul.

Think of practical problems: how would you search for persons? Place a thread called for instance: "Aidun seaches persons willing to run for consul"? Quite embarrassing.

If people reply, who is going to determine who shall run for it, or do we have to vote for one out of all people that are in the run when it comes to a poll? Or does the accusing senator determine? The fist option is quite confusing and the second is less democratic than the first: maximum democracy like a normal election.

Keep these logistical problems in mind and conclude that elections are far more easy to organize, more democratic and none can disagree with the procedure: it is maximum democratic.
The only thing on which people can disagree is the outcome.

Aidun.

	10-02-2003 02:46									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Good arguments Aidun. I agree with you.

	10-02-2003 03:18									#26
	Re: Constitution Ratification Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Thud Originally posted by donegeal A. The Consuls b. The Senator must state the person he is intending to remove from office, and the person he intends to replace him with, in the first post. It takes a majority of any option to win. This poll will last 72 hours.

I really like this rule. It should (I would hope) have a similar impact to the exact same rule in the German Parliament. Unlike other European parliaments, where a vote of no confidence can be held and the government can fall as a result with any government available to replace it (resulting in chaos for the management of government until a new cabinet can be brought into power). The German system (written by American lawyers at the end of World War II) includes that rule... it means that whenever a cabinet/government falls from power, a new one IMMEDIATELY replaces it, removing entirely the problem of the nation going without stable government while a new governing coalition is being hammered out.

The obvious downside (as it seems Aidun has pointed out), is that the rule means that no-confidence is rarely used. I believe, as a consequence of this rule, that no-confidence motions have only succeeded twice in German post-war history.

Personally, I don't find that to be a bad thing... stability is good. If people want to remove a consul, find a replacement. Especially when the handling of savefiles in a timely manner will be so critical to our continued success, removing a previous consul or consuls from power w/o naming a replacement and the resulting chaos could be disastrous even more than it is for parliamentary governments w/o stable governing coalitions.

I have yet to read many of the other responses... will have to do that next.

	10-02-2003 04:44									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

There is no risk of chaos or anarchy when a government falls.

As I've stated in my first post: if the ENTIRE government falls (entire means all three consuls) the appointed ministers act as consuls.
If onlu ONE consul is being removed from office, there is no threat of chaos or anarchy at all as the remaining tho consuls are still in office.

I reject the argument that my propsal is containing a threat to chaos.

Here in the Netherlands it is common that an old cabinet keeps on until the new cabinet is formed. This rule counts for normal cabinets that have fulfilled their term as well as fallen cabinets that got a NoCon vote.
The current dutch cabinet is such a cabinet: it has fallen, but remains in power until the new cabinet is formed.
OF COURSE fallen cabinets and cabinets that have fulfilled their term do not have the same STATUS as normal cabinets: the parliament has to confirm every action the cabinet does and no controversial decisions may be taken by the cabinet.

Aidun

	10-02-2003 10:10									#28
	Suffering from ads?

As regards the idea of not having elections every month, we could rechristen the name of the process form a "vote of no confidence". That sounds too harsh. If we had one person in each of whatever position we decide upon, we could possibly just keep them until
1.they screw up royally enough we feel we need to get rid of them for the good of the game and the rest of us (more a vopte of no confidence)

2. they retire for some (RL) reason

3. someone wants to have their job, in which case we have an instant election for that position between the interested parties, including the incumbent if they wish. The only problem I can see with this is that it may be the case we are in a perpetual state of election unless we agree on a minimuim period between elections.

'Scuse the spelling and layout mistakes - I'm poosting from a dodgy stand-up Net terminal at Melbourne airport - I'm going HOME!! arty!:

	10-02-2003 10:19									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt The only problem I can see with this is that it may be the case we are in a perpetual state of election unless we agree on a minimuim period between elections.

This could be solved by an ammendment to model the current RP Team system whereby you can't start a poll to topple the Despot with your own leadership more than once in a single week (because you "die" if you fail and your new character can't get enough prestige and influence to pull it off until at least a RL week later, corresponding to a long time in game terms - but that's just our justification for the rule).

That leaves nothing to stop multiple people from taking shots at a/the leader, but at least you won't have the same guy starting a poll to overthrow a leader every other day...

	10-02-2003 17:01									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I agree with that. The no-con votes should be separated in time by a week.