18-05-2003 18:06									#1
	Amendment II: Debate Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Well, as pretty much everyone seems to agree, we have a problem with a lack of democracy and participation (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=86343). Thus I propose the following amendment:

A new section shall be added to Article G:
4. The Senate has the power to ratify certain actions by the Consuls and Ministers.
a: All treaties, declarations of war, violations of treaties, and changes of government must be ratified by the Senate.
b: To request ratification for an action, a Consul or Minister shall post a poll.
c: The first post of the poll must clearly state the purpose of it and how long it will be open. The poll must have two options, yea and nay.
d: All ratification polls must be open for at least 24 hours. They require a simple majority to ratify an action.


Some comments:
First, the Consitution does not mention amendments anywhere. It was amended before, so I guess it is possible even though it would be technically unconstitutional, but how do the procedures work?

Second, about this specific amendment, I think the only significant point of discussion is part a. The rest is just procedural instructions; perhaps the length of the polls could be disputed but not much else. However, I'm not sure exactly what else should be included in a. Ideas?

	18-05-2003 20:11									#2
	Re: Amendment II: Debate Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 Well, as pretty much everyone seems to agree, we have a problem with a lack of democracy and participation (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=86343). Thus I propose the following amendment: A new section shall be added to Article G: 4. The Senate has the power to ratify certain actions by the Consuls and Ministers. a: All treaties, declarations of war, violations of treaties, and changes of government must be ratified by the Senate.

so we wait....

quote: b: To request ratification for an action, a Consul or Minister shall post a poll. c: The first post of the poll must clearly state the purpose of it and how long it will be open. The poll must have two options, yea and nay.

Should be 3 Options, with Abstain as part of the option. Some people will NOT vote in a poll if they do not have this option.

quote: d: All ratification polls must be open for at least 24 hours. They require a simple majority to ratify an action.

And there in lies ther rub becaue some issues DO require more time to debate and to be voted on. Granted, some things are time sensitive, to keep the game moving, but others aren't.

If it's a Time Sensitive issue, the Consuls will have the power to call end end to a vote, if 2 of the 3 agree, and the majority of the Ministers also agree. Otherwise, it should run a standard 72 hours.

quote: Some comments: First, the Consitution does not mention amendments anywhere. It was amended before, so I guess it is possible even though it would be technically unconstitutional, but how do the procedures work? Second, about this specific amendment, I think the only significant point of discussion is part a. The rest is just procedural instructions; perhaps the length of the polls could be disputed but not much else. However, I'm not sure exactly what else should be included in a. Ideas?

E_T

	18-05-2003 21:33									#3
	Tired of ads?

Nice amendment, but so far we haven't had any of these issues, except new treaties. Could you explain how this is going to increase the level of participation? People do have the option of discussion possible treaties now, don't they?

	18-05-2003 21:38									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

I agree with BFM. Our problem is not in making the big official decisions like declaring war, etc., it's in setting policies and priorities that will guide our Ministers and discussions. With half the team thinking CDG's time is up and half wanting to lay low, we're being very unproductive.


Dominae

	18-05-2003 22:01									#5
	Put an end to popups!

I have always beleaved that Information is the key. And If I feel that only a few people are posting about something and I think that the larger silent majority is behind my policies, I have posted polls about them. They have always affirmed that the direction that I was leading was the correct course and I've been confident to continue.

As we have already seen in the "Are you here" thread, a fair number of people haven't posted because they feel that things are going smoothly. And yes, a number of them haven't because they feel that their voice isn't being considered.

It's part and parcel of Con that we have. Yes, it was made in haste and yes, it was made with a reaction to the too strydgent con of the SPDG and yes, it also had to be more flexible with the fact that we play about 1 turn every 1.3 days. So it's not perfect, but it can be fixed.

E_T

	18-05-2003 23:16									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think that more democracy will start to emerge as the game wears on. We will, of course, have more people in government (regional advisors, etc) as we have a bigger empire.

Now, about this proposed ammendment: I agree with it, and I'm not quite sure why it wasn't in the first draft of the constitution...

Ah well... lets get it in now

	18-05-2003 23:44									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

It wasn't in the first constitution because we don't have time to hold up the game to seek ratification for actions in game. That was the thinking.

	19-05-2003 00:17									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I agree. We don't have time to poll ever decision and we certainly won't improve the game by adding layers of bureaucracy to it.

--Togas

	19-05-2003 05:06									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sorry guys - this ain't a SPDG anymore.... the time turn-around difference is such that we are prevented from polling on anything but large plans that span multiple turns and need to go into action several turns ahead of time.

Although, the decisions mentioned in your post are certainly pretty important ones, civman. We should never do any of them without serious discussion and broad agreement, so perhaps we CAN add stricter controls on some of those options - just nothing more.