26-05-2003 14:41									#1
	The Fresh Air: Revised Constitution - debate Full PM-box? Change here!

After proposing a clarification of our Constitution in another thread, surprisingly little input was gathered. Either people are cool with the changes/clarifications proposed or they do not care... either way, I feel it is time to propose the revised Constitution. Here is my attempt, feel free to comment (the revision includes several radical cuts - however, they are within the frame outlined in the "Team Structure" thread, so I will comment on them in details only if they are objected):

The Constitution

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. The Consuls may only be removed from office by the Change of Command vote. a vote of No-Confidence.
   
8. The Consuls appoint, replace, direct, and coordinate Ministers.

	26-05-2003 15:18									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Put this part back in with one minor change:
(took out semicolon)

The Consuls have the authority to make final game decisions, but must act within the boundaries of the law.
(In other words, the Consuls are not above the law)


Put this part back in as it was:

The Senate has the power to create law, which the Consuls must follow.
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.
b. The Bill must be passed by a simple majority, 50% plus 1, to become a law.
c. All bills must be open for at least 48 hours.
(As a Senator, I want to retain the right to create/submit a law if the need arises.)

The other changes make sense to me.

	26-05-2003 18:03									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, the part you want back (sort of a "referendum") is actually creating an ambiguity. If a "law" (as if we ever had anything like that created during the first 59 turns of the game) is "above" Consuls, then Consuls may be forced - by a "law" that may be outdated and/or based upon invalid assumptions/basics by the time is should be applied - to do something they (strongly) disagree with, but are actually responsible for. This may force Consuls do something they know is bad (but dictated by the "law") - or, consciously breach the Constitution, acting according their best judgment (and possibly, even common sense).

If Consuls are to retain the ability to react flexibly to unexpected events/circumstances, they need the right to override ANY prior plans/decisions/"laws". Otherwise, there would be no chance to change a bad law once the need arises suddenly - as any new, "good" law supposed to replace the old, "bad" law would need 48 hours to pass. And that is a time we will NEVER have (as the most we can use for any turn of ours is 24 hours).

I left that part (or these two parts) out also because over the first three months of this game (59 turns), there was not a single "law" adopted. It seems to me that we do not need any (confusing, I could add) provision like that, as it is never used anyway.

The Senate still retains the ultimate power, as it can replace any or all Consuls within a matter of days.

	26-05-2003 18:18									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I agree with BigFree. Even if the power to make laws has not been used, it should be included. If the Senate's only official role is replacing the consuls, this cannot be called a democracy game.

Also, something should be added providing for amendments.

	26-05-2003 20:04									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I'll give a reaction on your post first before I'll propose new suggestions.

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Well, the part you want back (sort of a "referendum") is actually creating an ambiguity. If a "law" (as if we ever had anything like that created during the first 59 turns of the game) is "above" Consuls, then Consuls may be forced - by a "law" that may be outdated and/or based upon invalid assumptions/basics by the time is should be applied - to do something they (strongly) disagree with, but are actually responsible for. This may force Consuls do something they know is bad (but dictated by the "law") - or, consciously breach the Constitution, acting according their best judgment (and possibly, even common sense).

The idea of democracy is that the people (demos) have the power (cratos) or, in a different formulation, the people make the decisions.

The fact that the people make the decisions does not mean they make the wisest decisions. It does only mean that there is at least support for these decisions from a majority of the people.

This is in contrast to the principle of despotism, in which there is not at least support from the majority of the population, but at least just from a minority of the population. The system does not tell us how big that minority or majority is. Even in despotism the entire population can be in favor of something, but in contrast it can also be but the despot that is in favor.

Concluding from what I have written above: democracy give us, in contrast to despotism, an insurrance that the decisions that are taken are at least supported by a majority of the population.


If we want to let Apolyton win this ISDG, we need to have people that make wise decisions. Now that I have shown you that democracy does not mean that the decisions that are made are always wise, the question has become:

do we want democracy, with the risk that unwise decisions will perhaps be made? OR do we want a non-democratic system in which we have wise people that rule us but who will perhaps make decision that the population doesn't support and with the risk that those rulers become isolated from the population itself?

This question is a difficult one. And it has been debated since the very first days of philosophy. Plato was in favor of the second option, he strongly opposed democracy.

I am in favor of the first option. Better have a majority that supports it than the risk of not having that.
Besides, this game should be fun and not be a test. Do you really think the other sites would consider us as stupid people just because we would eventually lose this game? The Romans lost their empire to poorly armed, chaotically fighting barbarians, but they did not loose their dignity, so did the Spanish when they lost the Eighty Years' War and the Americans when they lost the Vietnam war. This is not a battle for life or dead.

quote: If Consuls are to retain the ability to react flexibly to unexpected events/circumstances, they need the right to override ANY prior plans/decisions/"laws". Otherwise, there would be no chance to change a bad law once the need arises suddenly - as any new, "good" law supposed to replace the old, "bad" law would need 48 hours to pass. And that is a time we will NEVER have (as the most we can use for any turn of ours is 24 hours).

The consuls can see from the first day that the law is proposed until the day that it becomes active that it si a bad law. The consuls have a long period to make clear that the law is a bad law and should not be adopted.

If the people still vote in favor of the law, the consul has another power that has not been taken in consideration: to threaten to resign. If the people want to do things that are very unwise, so be it, but you as consul needn't to be responsible for that. You can threaten to resign and try to abolish the law by that way. If the people value you as a consul they will abolish the law, if they do not, you are not a consul anymore, that's a pity for you, but the message has then been clear: we do not want you. No nice-being without reason anymore.

quote: I left that part (or these two parts) out also because over the first three months of this game (59 turns), there was not a single "law" adopted. It seems to me that we do not need any (confusing, I could add) provision like that, as it is never used anyway.

The fact that there was not a single law adopted is no argument to delete an important phrase in the constitution, you have to bring forth better arguments that that.
Imagine: if the parliament in your own country has agreed with all proposals that have been made by the government, assuming the government is allowed to make proposals in your country, does that legitimate the abolition of the parliament itself?

Part 2: My own critics:

I agree with your idea of the president, it does not fit in a Roman-like republic with consuls, but we need to have a head of state to which foreign people can adress their feelings, ideas about Apolyton. This funcion is quite important and it is not because we like presidents and kings that all westren countries have a head of state and most of the non-western countries have a head of state.

Why should the minister of interior not have the right to ADVISE on the direction of the scientifical research?

I also think that we should allow the minister of interior to use the system he likes and not bind him to any pre-set system. Why not allow the minister to introduce something new if he has an idea of how to do it better?

I don't think it is good to let the minister of foreign affairs only advise on scientifical matters, if you want to change this right to advise, why then not grant it to all ministers.
I agree that foreign affairs play an important role in determining in what direction the techslider should go, but so have the minister of interior and minister of defence and even the minister of economy if we would adopt such a minister.

Aidun

	26-05-2003 20:38									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

In addition to the section about democracy I propose a model for a government I made for the C3DG II, but on which no comments came.

- There are no ministers with a specified task

- There is only a council, elected proportionally by the members of the ISDG with, for instance 10 members in it.

- In this council there are parties that have an amount of seats on which the members of these parties take place. You needn't to be member of a party to be elected in this council, but it should be easier for you if people know you are member of a certain party.

- The council decides about every plan or proposal that is brought before it by the people or the council members. There is a lot of discussion between the parties. After the discussion there is a majority in favor of the plan or not. If yes, the plan becomes policy, if not , it becomes the content of a litterbin.

- The members of the council are TOGETHER responsible for the policy they create. That means that the majority has the responsibility to adapt its ideas to a certain amount to the ideas if the minority so that in the and both the majority and the minority are happy with the policy. Of course the amount to which the majority adapts its ideas to the ideas of the minority is subject to the amount of the majority and the minority in the council.

- Elections are held every month. Any person can nominate himself as a candidate, whether he or she is member of a party or not. People can only vote for one person. The few persons with the largest amount of votes are in the council, but no more an no less than 10 members.

THIS SYSTEM SHOULD BE A SOLUTION TO

• Declining interest, because any person can attend discussions people will participate more; because there are parties that are represented in the council, people will get the feeling they belong to something and they battle for something: their own opinion (the opinion of their party) and the support for it.
  
• The monopoly of power of one particular minister on all issues that belong to his ministry.
  
• The problem the government faces now or will face in the future (C3DG knowledge) that there will once not be enough members active to make the decisions. Because the council makes most of the decisions, and the council is quite small, there will never be a situation in which we are unable to make decisions.
  
• Lack of democracy: because now once elected, a minister has a huge power to make decisions, he is king of his own ministry, such a huge power should be rather shared among a group of people than in the hands of one person.
  
• Lack of democracy: because in this system every idea is subject of discussion rather than subject to policy.

	26-05-2003 21:44									#7
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm fairly mixed on this revised constitution though. While I personally don't really have much of a problem with the way our government has been functioning, what this constitution does is give the counsuls even more absolute authority, while not dealing with the issue of participation.

I think what people were looking at would be some sort of system where our counsuls were actually elected in, with elections happening after a certain period of time. I would support this as well (especially a no term limit clause, that way you guys could run forever if you wanted to, as long as people supported you).

As it is right now, if some played wants to run, they have to poll for a CoC, which could be a fairly unpopular move. People will say "Why are you demanding a CoC on this person?" and the reply would be, "Because someone new should be in there... and I want to run."

I agree that this is a fast paced game and the counsuls should have quite a bit of leeway, but this proposal gives less democracy to people instead of more and will possibly alienate those who wish to participate in the game.

	26-05-2003 21:55									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Aidun, accept my apologies if my post sounds a bit harsh, but I kind of mind what you posted - mostly because it shows a large ignorance of how this game works and what has been discussed recently...

quote: Originally posted by Aidun The consuls can see from the first day that the law is proposed until the day that it becomes active that it si a bad law. The consuls have a long period to make clear that the law is a bad law and should not be adopted.

I was specifically addressing only cases when a "law" becomes obsolete because of being based on information/assumptions that become invalid. I have no problem with "laws" that are "bad" (IMO), but based on valid data - if it's the will of majority, so be it. The problem is that an event may happen unexpectedly, requiring immediate action against a "law" - and the Constitution does not allow changing this law faster than in 48 hours. And at the same time, the Constitution does not allow Consuls to act accordingly.

Imagine our and CDG/Persian empires well developed, sharing a border. A "law" is adopted that says we are not to declare war on Persians until Turn XX. All of a sudden, on Turn XX-10, a large Persian fleet appears right next to our naval border, within a landing range of our ill-defended rear. Now what? Those Persian galleys are not just fishin', ya know? The "law" says: 'no war'. The situation though, is apparently mature for an immediate response - launching a naval counterstrike, hitting the Persians BEFORE they land. But the Consuls must obbey the law, so they cannot do anything (just "prepare for impact"). There is no way in hell that the law could be changed in time - the Constitution says 48 hours to pass a new law. So what?

Include "emergency powers" for Consuls in the Constitution? And who is to say if a situation is an emergency or not? It is pretty much the same as if there was no clause regarding the "law", because Consuls could argue that they felt the situation was an emergency...

quote: The fact that there was not a single law adopted is no argument to delete an important phrase in the constitution, you have to bring forth better arguments that that.

That was not a primary reason, but a supporting point - the primary reason is explained in detail in the previous paragraph. This was to point out that even WITH such a clause in the Constitution, no "law" was ever created, so there is apparently very little desire to handle stuff through "laws".

quote: I agree with your idea of the president, it does not fit in a Roman-like republic with consuls, but we need to have a head of state to which foreign people can adress their feelings, ideas about Apolyton. This funcion is quite important and it is not because we like presidents and kings that all westren countries have a head of state and most of the non-western countries have a head of state.

I find the post of President completely expendable. Has anyone noticed there's no President since Ninot's CoC? Has anyone noticed there was no President even prior to that CoC, as Ninot was almost inactive? "Foreign people"? Who are they? Other teams are supposed to communicate through the ambassadorial channels, not directly to our "head of state".

quote: Why should the minister of interior not have the right to ADVISE on the direction of the scientifical research?

I moved science to FAM because it has been informally agreed upon that science shall be supervised by FAM (as most "research" is done through trading anyway). It goes without saying that EVERYBODY (not just Ministers) is allowed to advise on whatever he/she feels like. The wording in the Constitution is meant to express that this and this Minister is SUPPOSED to advise or, in other words, TAKE CARE, of that specific part of the agenda of state.

quote: I also think that we should allow the minister of interior to use the system he likes and not bind him to any pre-set system. Why not allow the minister to introduce something new if he has an idea of how to do it better?

Yeah, just that we have DarkCloud, "Minister of Lexicography", taking care of most naming. The original part of the Constitution is simply nonsensical. As there is not a single word about MoI being NOT allowed to create whatever system of management he prefers, it makes little sense to expressly allow him to create one. Why?

quote: I don't think it is good to let the minister of foreign affairs only advise on scientifical matters, if you want to change this right to advise, why then not grant it to all ministers. I agree that foreign affairs play an important role in determining in what direction the techslider should go, but so have the minister of interior and minister of defence and even the minister of economy if we would adopt such a minister.

See my comment above. There must be ONE minister responsible for organizing a specific part of the agenda of state. For science, it makes most sense to make FAM responsible, as most techs are traded for, not researched the hard way.


As for your you model... I am sorry to say that I am deeply convinced it is TOTALLY unusable. There is NO WAY IN HELL that a council of 10 people could be flexible enough to be able to govern this team for the purpose of playing the ISDG.

plus:

a) Ministers have NO monopoly of power. They actually have NO POWER AT ALL (according to the revised Constitution).

b) I see no problem with making decisions. Everyday or emergency decisons are to be taken by the Consuls. There are three of them, which is a reasonable compromise between empowering too few people and empowering too many people... there is no chance of 10 people getting together often enough, creating policies, and ruling on game related issues. NO WAY. They would have to gather basically every day (as the Consuls speak to each if not every, then every other day). I hardly remember the last time there was 10 people in the ISDG chatroom...

c) be so kind and read the thread "The Fresh Air: Team Structure". You will find the outline of the team structure there, including the "powers" granted to Ministers.

d) as pointed out several times in the past, this game (ISDG) is not suited for a truly democractic approach. Sorry to say so, but the democracy you are calling for is not able to play a turn every 36 hours.

	26-05-2003 22:06									#9
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by WhiteBandit I think what people were looking at would be some sort of system where our counsuls were actually elected in, with elections happening after a certain period of time. I would support this as well (especially a no term limit clause, that way you guys could run forever if you wanted to, as long as people supported you).

If this is what people are looking for, then why NOBODY posted a SINGLE LINE about it in the discussion thread set up for this purpose exactly one week ago (despite being expressly PROMPTED TO)? Guys, is this some sort of a show where a couple of clowns is trying to come up with some fun for others? I thought that this "more participation" would start with people speaking their minds about how to make ISDG more "participable". But all the "debate" in the "Team Structure" thread was just... just... go read it for yourselves!

I admit I am totally confused about what this team wants... When I post a thread with clearly described changes the Consuls consider implementing into the Constitution, the response is almost non-existent. When I go ahead and actually implement the changes into a draft (because that's what I did), it all of a sudden looks like people actually meant to say they wanted something different... but they for some reason did not post about it...

sigh...

	26-05-2003 22:11									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I would like to see a rotating Consulship, where the Consul has a term time of 3 months, and each month, a different consul is elected/reelected. As the consul is to still be in office for 3 months, we should still have the capability to call for a vote of no confidence against any one consul.

If a consul runs unopposed, then the vote would be one of confirmation.

As NYE and Vondrack were original Consuls (if this get's implemented), then they could either draw straws for which seat is up for re-election or they can put it to a vote.

MoI E_T

	26-05-2003 22:21									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I am fine with our Constitution overall, but I would like to keep the bit about laws. Emergency powers *are* an effective tool towards removing the inherent conflicts, and are also a "highlighter" for actions by the Consuls that might offend the team.

I do not see the need for a drastic governance overhaul.

	26-05-2003 22:41									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

If a law that is proposed had the kind of problems , such as , "do not declare war until turn XX"; then when the law is first proposed and voted upon, this problem should and would be brought up. Thus causing such a law not to pass without clauses such as: "If CDG brings units close to or in our border and it appears reasonably that CDg will attacks or otherwise acts in a manner that shows that an attack is imminent, then the Consuls have power to declare war before turn XX in order to better deal with the situation."

This is just one example of how a situation you proposed could be dealt with. As far as I know, the Consuls can vote on the laws as well as make proposals to amendments for them.

In most situations there will be a period of more than 48 hours between when a major decsion must be made to when it is presented. This gives time to propose a new law or to abolish an old one, whichever way it is needed.

In case where a law might not let us have that time to make another desion within 48 hours, the law must be carefully considered and all options weighed before voting on such a law.

I do have one proposal that you may like, vondrack, it will give the Minister's the power to veto or abolish a law if the Consuls are also in favor of vetoing or abolishing it.

We have 4 Ministers and 3 Consuls. What if it took a majority vote by the combination of Ministers and Consuls to either veto or abolish a law? Where 4 votes out of 7 would be needed to do this. This would re-distribute some of the power to the Minister's while keeping some of the power with the Senators(regualr folk.) There would be a 24 hour period for such a vote to take place, so emergencies could be dealt with in a timely manner. If not all 7 voter's can vote then a simple majority of those that are will suffice; in case of a tie, the Consuls will have to vote to break that tie.

	26-05-2003 23:48									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: from Vondrack As for your you model... I am sorry to say that I am deeply convinced it is TOTALLY unusable. There is NO WAY IN HELL that a council of 10 people could be flexible enough to be able to govern this team for the purpose of playing the ISDG. b) I see no problem with making decisions. Everyday or emergency decisons are to be taken by the Consuls. There are three of them, which is a reasonable compromise between empowering too few people and empowering too many people... there is no chance of 10 people getting together often enough, creating policies, and ruling on game related issues. NO WAY. They would have to gather basically every day (as the Consuls speak to each if not every, then every other day). I hardly remember the last time there was 10 people in the ISDG chatroom...

I forgot that the game is moving quite fast, something different than what I am accustomed too

quote: I find the post of President completely expendable. Has anyone noticed there's no President since Ninot's CoC? Has anyone noticed there was no President even prior to that CoC, as Ninot was almost inactive? "Foreign people"? Who are they? Other teams are supposed to communicate through the ambassadorial channels, not directly to our "head of state".

I have little experience with the way this game functions. But I have some experience with the other DG's. From the team-DG I have learned, like you must have learned too that when it comes to a point that the importance of a diplomatic talk is such that a faillure means war, ambassadors will be passed. I have seen it with my own eyes in the war against Lux, so did I in the ongoing war.

Ambassadors are nice to talk with in times of peace, but when war is about to occur, I'd rather talk with someone of whom I know that he has the power to make sure that what he says will come true: the head of government or a minister.

Aidun

	27-05-2003 00:34									#14
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I want a system in which the consuls rotate every week-and-a-half. On every sunday, except in a leap year and on dates that are prime numbers, they will have to address the people. In their speech, which by the way they must hold upside-down, or bungee-jumping (but only in February), they must come up with 11 new ideas. The people can vote on these ideas - the idea with the second number of votes wins. (etc.)

Point: Vondrack's proposal is a very good one. The Consuls are doing a great job! The Constitution is working fine.

Increasing the participation can IMHO be done by making more discussion threads and polls. These threads should have some pre-selected choices (so you start with something to debate about) and, at the same time, be 'open' to fresh ideas.

	27-05-2003 00:34									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

From the practical point of view, your proposal sounds fine, BigFree. Consuls and Ministers are active enough to be able to call an emergency meeting...

Though theoretically, there is this thing with Ministers being APPOINTED by Consuls. Not sure if this might be a problem or not...

Also, E_T - as for rotating Consuls and whatnot... no problem at all, at least with me. Try formulating your idea into a Constitution paragraph, please.

As for me and nye drawing straws... don't worry, that would not be necessary.

	27-05-2003 00:44									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Aidun I have little experience with the way this game functions. But I have some experience with the other DG's. From the team-DG I have learned, like you must have learned too that when it comes to a point that the importance of a diplomatic talk is such that a faillure means war, ambassadors will be passed. I have seen it with my own eyes in the war against Lux, so did I in the ongoing war. Ambassadors are nice to talk with in times of peace, but when war is about to occur, I'd rather talk with someone of whom I know that he has the power to make sure that what he says will come true: the head of government or a minister.

This is correct, though for this purpose, every one of the Consuls will do (after our ambassador, and then our FAM find themselves in a blind alley). It is actually a bit intentional, I think, since with just one "head of a state" it is more difficult to arrange the top-level diplo meeting. With three of them, there is almost always at least one around, which helps taking care of emergency situations.

P.S.: BFM, your post gave me a good laugh! Thanks!

	27-05-2003 00:50									#17
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Thinking of the comments... there is one thing I shall grant to those that feel less than 100% happy about the "threesomeness" of our leadership, or lack of a designated "head of the state". So far, it has been almost like there's just a single leader with three incarnations, all speaking almost the same language - thanks to the "same blood type" the current Consuls share. May not be the case with another Consular team... but that will always be the responsibility of the team as a whole to elect Consuls able/willing to truly cooperate for the benefit of Apolyton.

	27-05-2003 00:52									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

Should have just let the Constitution the way it was, no one would have noticed that the rules weren't being followed ... by bringing up the desire to change the Constitution and creating a debate thread, you opened up a whole messy can of worms, and now everyone is going to speak their mind. You can't complain if you start up a debate thread and people start debating.

One thing I am dissapointed about is that there is no mention of the proposal to have Consuls serve for a period of 3 months, and have them each up for election every month. This idea was discussed in chat, and I personally mentioned it to NYE and VonD who both said they liked the idea.

Instead, Vondrack proposes that the Consuls don't have to act within the boundaries of the law?? That is absolutely preposterous! It's the king of all loopholes.

In the beginning of the game, we convinced people that the nature of the ISDG was so chaotic and unpredictable that a democractic system would not function. However, I get the feeling that playing in a "Despotism Game" when you're not the Despot isn't all that fun.

If we want true efficiency, then we move towards despotism and the leaders HAVE TO find ways to keep the people feeling as if they're involved, entertained, and important in the overall decisions. Not just give it lip service but actively working on it, instead of just telling people that if they post, we'll listen.

If we want participation and involvement, we move towards a democracy and put in safeguards that allow the leaders to bypass orders in emergencies or to make decisions for ministers when none are made.

Frankly, I accepted being told that my role as FAM was to advise and not to make orders because that's what the law originally said. I was not under the impression that I was giving carte blanche for the Consuls to increase their already abundant authority. I'll live with my diminished role as long as things appear to be going in the right direction, but deep down inside I do not believe that things work best when someone higher up makes the diplomatic decisions, and I doubt that E_T and Trip believe that someone else should be making the final decisions as well. I don't think that's in any of our natures. We all believe that we are the best at our jobs.

--Togas

	27-05-2003 01:26									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Togas Should have just let the Constitution the way it was, no one would have noticed that the rules weren't being followed ... by bringing up the desire to change the Constitution and creating a debate thread, you opened up a whole messy can of worms, and now everyone is going to speak their mind. You can't complain if you start up a debate thread and people start debating.

Errr... I am complaining about exactly the opposite. I did create a debate thread a week ago and almost NOBODY DEBATED the proposal.

quote: Originally posted by Togas One thing I am dissapointed about is that there is no mention of the proposal to have Consuls serve for a period of 3 months, and have them each up for election every month. This idea was discussed in chat, and I personally mentioned it to NYE and VonD who both said they liked the idea.

Feel free to suggest a paragraph regarding such a term length. The fact that me and nye are perfectly cool with such a system, doesn't mean I feel I should incorporate in into the draft, WHEN NOBODY ASKED FOR IT IN THE DEBATE THREAD IN A WEEK TIME.

quote: Originally posted by Togas In the beginning of the game, we convinced people that the nature of the ISDG was so chaotic and unpredictable that a democractic system would not function. However, I get the feeling that playing in a "Despotism Game" when you're not the Despot isn't all that fun.

Ever thought of how much fun a "Despotism Game" is for the Despot? Wanna try it? I mean it...

Come to think of it, you may be the only one here knowing how being a true Despot feels...

quote: deep down inside I do not believe that things work best when someone higher up makes the diplomatic decisions, and I doubt that E_T and Trip believe that someone else should be making the final decisions as well. I don't think that's in any of our natures. We all believe that we are the best at our jobs.

Sigh. Yes, that is exactly the problem. You, Trip, and E_T (guys, I am just quoting Togas! ) believe you are the best in your fields. Just that agendas of the individual ministries are not separable. They overlap and relate to each other to such an extent that it is impossible to follow a coherent, meaningful strategy just by following orders coming from the three key ministries. Friction between ministries and them calling for a "direction" was exactly the reason making the Consuls step ahead of the team and start leading. And it is exactly the reason for suggesting a clarification of the Constitution that will clearly state it is someone else then Ministers calling the shots.

We can also make it the other way round, if you or the team thought it would work... we could scrap Ministers altogether and create a triumvirate of Consul of War, Consul of the Interior, and Consul of the F.A. Their agendas being basically agendas of the current Ministers, but with the added powers/responsibilities to make decisions. That could be a working model, too. Just that we would have to start paying these people money for their job. Even as it is, with a 2-level Consul/Minister system of managing things, all of them spend hours every day to make things work. Cut to just three people, they would end up losing their life completely.

	27-05-2003 01:55									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by vondrack From the practical point of view, your proposal sounds fine, BigFree. Consuls and Ministers are active enough to be able to call an emergency meeting... Though theoretically, there is this thing with Ministers being APPOINTED by Consuls. Not sure if this might be a problem or not...

Then I make the following proposal to change the Constitution:

Change section A part 8 from this:

quote: The Consuls appoint, replace, direct, and coordinate Ministers.

To This:

quote: The Consuls direct and coordinate Ministers.

Put in a section B that reads:

quote: 1. The four Minister's shall be elected in a poll. 2. The Candidates for the poll have to be nominated and then seconded by two seperate parties. 3. Nominations will be open for 72 hours, at which point they will be closed. 4. The Consuls will open and close the nomination Threads according to the Constituion. 5. Ministers serve a term of 3 Months, and can be re-elected ad infinitum. 6. Nomination Threads for Minister's shall be opened three weeks prior to the end of the terms for the Minister's. 7. Elections for Minister's are to be held no sooner than 24 hours after the Nomination Threads are closed but no later than 48 hours afterward. 8. Election polls will be open for 72 hours. 9. A Candidate for a Ministerial position will win that election with a 50% plus one vote Majority. 10. In case there is not a majority, there will be a run off by eliminating the lowest vote reciever from the poll and a new poll put in it's place. The New poll shall be run in accordance with the previous polls. 11. All Apolyton ISDG team members are authorized to vote. 12 In case of a tie in a poll with two Candidates, the Consuls shall cast their votes again in order to break the tie.

There's a few other minor wording changes that need to be made as well if the above is adopted. Like the parts that explain what the Minister's jobs are and say "One Citizen shall be appointed elected as Minister of the Interior.

It gives the people more power while still giving the Consuls the power to "direct" the Minister's.

	27-05-2003 02:11									#21
	Support Apolyton

A sidetrack post that might (hopefully) have some bearing on the current situation (or not. You decide).

A key difference between the Roleplay team and this team is that in the beginning, the team accepted the fact that there was going to be a Despot, and accepted that sort of team structure. The only rule in place was that the Despot could be overthrown via a poll system (majority vote). Otherwise the Despot made the rules and everyone had to follow them.

In order to keep people interested and involved, many jobs were created, some were purely roleplay. Responsibility and authority was given out to as many people as practicable with a "check" on the system being that the Despot could overrule them whenever necessary.

The players kept themselves involved either by managing their units/cities, or by participating in their own self-initiated roleplay. Most stayed involved because they had a city to run, a unit to move, or other responsibilities to tend to. Having a stake or a duty helps keep a person interested. But we also had sidestories and other entertaining roleplay that helped in the boring spells.

When things get slow, confusing, complicated, or disorganized, the team looks to the Despot to fix things and ultimately it comes down to me to do so. I've been fortunate to have players step up and contribute on their own without me having to ask them to do it so I don't have to do everything myself. I've also been lucky to have players who follow things very closely that can step in for me when I'm away.


The keys to success for the team seem to be a good team chemistry and good attitude, an universal acceptance of the government structure, a "sharing" in the work by all team members ... most of whom have their own city to manage, a tolerant dictator who (for the most part) lets the players manage their holdings, and a single force/player who leads the team when leadership is required.

This is somewhat similiar to what we have on the ISDG, except that we have 3 despots, and a faux Constitution.

I could explain quite a few of the lessons I've learned while playing "Despot" for a team, however, the main thing that must be in place is a universal acceptance by the players of that form of government. And I get the feeling that many, perhaps most, of this team really wants this to be a Democracy.

So the question becomes -- do you convince them that it shouldn't be a Democracy or do you make it more democractic?

--Togas

	27-05-2003 03:09									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Togas, you are formulating something about which I doubted how I would bring it into the discussion.

A government needs to be legitimate. Whether you call this a despotic system or a democracy, it is at least at one point democratic: the government is for it legitimacy dependent on the people here.

The people have considered this government legitimate for a long time, but that time seems to come to an end. The people seem to no longer consider it legitimate and thus we need to change the system.

Aidun

	27-05-2003 03:31									#23
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Aidun The people have considered this government legitimate for a long time, but that time seems to come to an end. The people seem to no longer consider it legitimate and thus we need to change the system.

Boldface added.

BEG YOUR PARDON? People - I mean those of you that Aidun "speaks for"... those of you that "no longer consider this government legitimate" - will you be so kind and speak up, PLEASE?

I am still at awe at this statement... totally stunned.

	27-05-2003 03:36									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't echo those feeling vondrack, this Government is legitimate, though our Constittuion needs some tweaking.

I think Aidun is using English as a second language, so his point may have come accross the wrong way.....

	27-05-2003 03:40									#25
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Boldface added. BEG YOUR PARDON? People - I mean those of you that Aidun "speaks for"... those of you that "no longer consider this government legitimate" - will you be so kind and speak up, PLEASE? I am still at awe at this statement... totally stunned.

hi ,

there are some , ....

a certain site seems to be full of complains on this game and its people , .....

well the people feel left out , they feel that in most steps they are simply ignored and therefore they play a game by themselfs or with friends instead of this one , ....

have a nice day

	27-05-2003 03:46									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

No, I do mean what I say, my English is good enough in most cases.

Yes, Vondrack, it is me who says it, I speak for them, I admit that.

You should explain why members of the ISDG are DISCUSSING the constitution. You have opened that discussion, I know, We have no right to say that it is our initiative, but why are people questioning what the power and function of ministers and consuls should be?
[b]Because we seem to agree on the unspoken idea that there should be a big change in the system!

I'm trying to make that clear from the very day of my return but you seem to not understand it.

I ask you now in return WHY ARE WE DEBATING YOUR POSITIONI?T BE HONEST AND GIVE AN ANSWER INSTEAD OF ACTING LIKE THERE IS NOTHING HAPPENING AT ALL!!

Aidun

	27-05-2003 03:56									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

hi ,

several times a link got posted or an other reference for that matter to the laws and regulations of the other teams , ...... they are so great , know why , they are so simple and logicical compared to some of the hard to get red paper that we have , ..... its nearly impossible to read it all in one thread and try to follow it all , ....

two main important things are forgotten ;

Keep It Simple Stupid

Together Everyone Achieves More

and last but not least , this is a game , a game is supposed to be simple and is supposed to bring fun and joy , not asperin , ......

waarom zijn er toch zoveel steenezels op deze wereld , .....???

and then the personal insults and speculations that fly around like the yellow cards in a soccer game , ......

not to mention how some people are more intrested at certain chat sessions about who posted what , who has this stupid avatar , who cant sleep cause that person sayed so and so while what he posted means so and so , .....

and the game , ....

well the game lays forgotten in a corner , .....

have a nice day

	27-05-2003 04:10									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Panag, thanks theat you have brought back the wisdom while we are bickering. Especially that Dutch sentence that nobody else here understands gave me to think what this is all about.

"Waarom zijn er toch zoveel steenezels op deze wereld?"

Thank you Panag, I see.


I have become a revolutionary, Storming the bastille.

Aidun

	27-05-2003 04:22									#29
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by panag a certain site seems to be full of complains on this game and its people , .....

Panag, what exactly are you refering to here. Is there discussion about this team on some other site?

E_T

	27-05-2003 04:47									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by E_T Panag, what exactly are you refering to here. Is there discussion about this team on some other site? E_T

hi ,

on a couple , ....

i shall save you from some of the comments but there are some hypocrits who have fun and post here they shall do so and so while at the other side the have fun with us and those same people say what morons we are , .....

this is a poly game , so it should stay at poly , not on an other site , ....

not to mention of the fun some people seem to have while bashing poly's owners , mods and posters , ....

and then they come in here and act like nothing has happend , .....

or the false bs they spread , ....

and then when those people are confronted they fall out of the sky without a parachute going open , .... *splash* and they act like nothing happens , ....

surprised that people run away , .....

last week Sabra got a poster on her site , .... ( he has asked no to be named btw ) he run away from this game , .....

people want to have fun , they dont want bs , why do you think so many stay in the civ2 games , ...

the game has become a reason d'etre or a justification to enforce some own personal views on others , that aint what a game is supposed to be doing , .....

why dont people post ideas anymore , cause no-one cares to listen to them if they dont do this or that , ....

cause no matter what they say person so and so has all the wisdom and what he says should be done , ..... then why on earth play with 87 people , ......

there is a great amount of problems but for each problem there is a solution , .... if one only puts the problem a bit further away from his eyeballs so he can see it from all sides instead of seeing only the problem , ....

have a nice day