27-05-2003 05:05									#31
	Support Apolyton

Aidun, note, please, that I was addressing "the people" you claim to be speaking for, not you... sorry if I made myself not clear enough...

quote: Originally posted by Aidun 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? Because we seem to agree on the unspoken idea that there should be a big change in the system!

Yes, definitely. The draft I posted in the first post was an attempt to streamline and clarify the formal frame of this team, the Constitution. My intention was to put the Constitution in agreement with the reality, that's all. Members are discussing the draft hopefully because I asked them to. Dunno why they did not discuss the principles before, when I asked them to, but this is not a perfect world...

Define "we", please.

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

Ah, yes, that is quite possible. I may be missing your whole point since the moment you returned. See... I am a simple man... I am trying to get things done. Things like plans, turns, reports, and such. That's why I spend my time writing stuff like The Fresh Air Series, AltSp thread, debating with Ministers... I admit I completely fail to see what you are actually after, since I haven't noticed you contributing anything in this area. I find it rather self-commenting that you posted NOTHING in the two key threads that actually deal with our long-term strategy plan, i.e. in threads that actually deliver what you seem to be asking for - more discussion, more democracy, more ways to participate.

Before arguing with you any further, I will wait for the results of the handy poll Togas posted - about what kind of government this team actually wants.

quote: 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!!

Would you rephrase, please? Not sure what you are actually asking me... I suppose we are debating the draft I posted because not everybody is cool with it... it seems that there is a desire to keep the "law" thing in, even if complemented by an emergency mechanism... is there more to it?

	27-05-2003 05:51									#32
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If you want to participate, post like everyone else does, one turn at a time, one thread at a time, influencing policy, one day at a time. SOMEONE has to be the final word and press the buttons on the keyboard that makes our moves. SOMEONE has to gather all the discordant opinions together and come up with a strategem.

Vondrack and NYE have been doing a very good job of that.

There is nothing wrong with how this game is being run. I notice that of the people who are complaining that the game is being run poorly, not one of them consistently opines on a turn thread about what should be going on.

Two thumbs up and power to the consuls of our LEGITIMATE government.

	27-05-2003 06:22									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Thank you, Fried-Psitalon. Encouragement is always welcome, as are ideas which you also seem to never be short of. Good job.

As for the rest of this, I think we can take some things too seriously. I can see that vondrack is somewhat taken aback by the sudden interest in a topic where interest was very low just a short while ago. Perhaps thread titles make a very big difference.

I suggest that we back up a bit, and attend to first principles. Togas has posted an excellent thread that will serve as a great place to start. Having been involved in writing constitutions before, I am certain that we can arrive at something that is good for the vast majority of us. We can arrive at a document which allows both for participation by the masses, and decisive action by the executive in playing turns. We simply must search a bit for the way.

btw, I would like to personally thank vondrack for the effort he has been pouring into the topics of our strategy, our form of government, and distributing information for all, as well as being there to play turns. I cannot not think of a better person to be working with as Consul.

	27-05-2003 06:47									#34
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Thank you, Fried-Psitalon. Once again. Encouragement is so much welcome.

And thank you, nye. Thank you for your kind words. You know I feel exactly the same way about you. It has always been a great relief knowing you're around, able to share ideas & thoughts without having to type them all on the keyboard, ready to co-take the responsibility, ready to fill in when I hadn't time enough, ready to publicly support/explain our mutual decisions. This team is very lucky having you as Consul.

	27-05-2003 06:55									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Time to make this Consul love-in a three-way. Please nominate candidates for MrWhereItsAt's replacement.


Dominae

	27-05-2003 07:13									#36
	Remove this text

I thought you would have had someone lined up, Dominae. Are you ready to serve? You see, wanting change, and being willing to do the work to make it happen might be two seperate things.

	27-05-2003 07:28									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by panag hi , on a couple , ....

On which ones. Can you give us a couple of links??

quote: 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 , ....

I would like to know what they are saying. Are they saying things that are of a secret nature to this team? Are they posting about plans that people have discussed? Have they made dispariging comments on how one of our FAM members is handling contacts with any particular Civ?

But mostly, Has Private Information that is supposed to remain in this forum been released in a public format?? This is the question that NEEDS to be answered completely and truthfully and not in your usual vague fashion. We want straight answers!!

E_T

	27-05-2003 07:32									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

nye, I'm trying to improve the team, nothing more.

I understand fully that criticism without action is somewhat hypocritical. In fact, I've been arguing this very point without Aidun and the other revolutionaries.

However, I do not consider it hypocritical for me to call for a CoC at this time and not step forward myself. I resigned because I wanted to avoid the situation MrWhereIsAt has been forced into. Clearly MrWhereItsAt has not fulfilled his mandate, and (to my dismay) the other Consuls do not care. I'm still trying to figure out why the both of you thought it would be "ok" to have an inactive Consul.

I'm quite certain we'll find someone else to fill MrWhereItsAt's position.

The "fresh air" idea is a great one. I believe my CoC is part of it. As I said in my CoC thread, if one of our weak links is at the Consul level, we're in trouble. You and vondrack have done an amazing job recently: imagine what three active Consuls could do!


Dominae

	27-05-2003 08:18									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

s'OK, Dominae. Just hoping that things do not get too tense around here. There seems to be a bit of tension today.

As for MrWIA, and why I thought it might be OK... He is not gone, gone, gone. He let us know he would not be able to play turns and would not have constant net access. He did not say he would be completely absent. This was all in a single conversation a number of days ago. It was/has been known to many that MrWIA would be away from his coop. That was no secret.

If I have a fault, it may be loyalty. In this case, I chose loyalty to MrWIA, and did not consider what others in the team would feel. I honestly did not see a problem since he will be available somewhat regularly and vondrack and I have played all the turns to this point. If others feel differently, I understand. However, I think having three consuls was somewhat influenced by life coming up from time to time. I think the theory was that we would always be covered.

	27-05-2003 09:15									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Unfortunately I don't have much time to argue about this issue, in fact I have only skimmed through the posts so pardon me if I'm not getting 100% of the picture. My main complaint has to do with the proposed chances to the constitution:

the following points have been scratched:


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.


This is absolutely preposterous. People have been complaining all along that they've been left out and now you want to modify the constitution to give the Consuls even more power than they already have? I have no problems with the legal framework used at this moment for Consulship, as I said in the other thread, I prefer this to be an oligarchy than a representative democracy precisely for time reasons. However, giving the Consuls such power even over the Ministers is ludicrous!

By scratching point 3 you are basically saying the Consuls are immune from any form of senatorial decision, this of course assumes that every Consul decision is always and will always be 100% correct. Sorry, wrong. Despite the fact that you guys have done a good job so far, this is not to say that the time may come in which a Consul decision might not be the optimum one. If this happens, and a decision is made which goes against the wishes of the rest of the team, you'll find yourselves in a very nasty position.

As for point 4, this is basically saying that the Ministers will only hold an "advisory" position, nothing else. Why have Ministers then in the first place? If Ministerial decisions aren't definitive (backed up by public opinion of course) then this turns into basically a 3-man team. If you are doing this to avoid the bickering that occurs in every tema (MoW says this FAM says that,), then I belive such disputes (which are rather infrecuent) be considered unforseen circumstances as the original constitution so plainly said and the Consuls be free to break that deadlock, but only when there are such deadlock.

Finally, I honestly think more thought should be given for the legal framework of a rotative Consulship. It is an idea which I have floated around since weeks back, and many people seem to support it. Not only would it maintain a centralized form of government but it would give what many of the people want: some sort of elections to spice things up.

-MZ

	27-05-2003 09:22									#41
	Remove this text

Well back on Topic....

it is indeed a pity that the idea had not come up before in vondrack's thread calling for ideas on how to change our Constitution/game structure on a rotating Consul system, or even elections for Consuls, but it has now. Better late than never. If elections are what the team wants, then as long as they are feasible where we can keep playing the game, that is what should happen.

Feasibility? Say for argument's sake we want Consuls in for 3 weeks at a time. Can we do this and keep playing? Yes I think so. We need only have polls up for three days (experience in the SMAC DG has shown that, with a smaller, highly active group, three days is all that is needed for everyone to have their say in a poll). As long as we only have one or at absolute most two Consul positions up at a time, the third can still play, even if the newly elected Consul(s) have problems with getting on for a bit. The incumbent(s) should certainly have no restriction on their ability to stand multiple times in a row, as I can certainly see that some will clearly not want to repeat their Consul experiences, whereas a select few will. We can't force a change if there is no-one willing to take the reins. Where the incumbent(s) are the only ones willing to stand, we can hopefully forego elections completely.

These ideas need not invalidate the CoC idea, but I would add that a CoC is not needed where the Consul has resigned - if the CoC fails, we surely cannot hold a Consul in position against his will.

The "legality" issue is highly annoying to the Consuls. It is clear that many are unhappy with the idea of removing the clause about Consuls having to abide by the law, but what can we do with it if it stays? There are currently no laws beyond the Constitution. No-one has proposed any. The game moves so fast that there is little if any need for them - any laws would become obsolete quickly. The only things I can think of that we could include as "laws" would be agreements with other Civs/teams. We could make it illegal for Consuls to break these agreements without a poll for approval or without the other civ reneging. Can anyone think of any other laws? If not then why don't we stick to this - we can always change things as they turn up - as it is anyone could currently legitimately challenge a Consul for breaking the "law" and since there is no strict definition for "law", surely all can see the danger of this in problems and delays caused?

	27-05-2003 09:30									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither s'OK, Dominae. Just hoping that things do not get too tense around here. There seems to be a bit of tension today.

Yup, and I just pumped it up a notch. Doh!

quote: If I have a fault, it may be loyalty. In this case, I chose loyalty to MrWIA, and did not consider what others in the team would feel. I honestly did not see a problem since he will be available somewhat regularly and vondrack and I have played all the turns to this point.

I see your point (and respect you for putting loyalty before bureaucracy!). This is my point, though: in a team where debates are occurring daily concerning team structure and leadership, a Consul appears not to be pulling his weight. We're looking to increase participation and dedication, and one of our Consuls is not modelling these traits.

It sounds like I'm hammering down one MrWhereItsAt, but trust me, that is not my intention. My primary goal is to get this team whipped into shape (like everyone else is trying to do, it seems). My secondary goal is to "break the ice" concerning CoCs, since many Citizens/Senators believe the taboo surrounding these is a major impediment to our democracy. I cannot honestly claim to have a good or bad opinion of MrWhereItsAt: I've not enough to go on. But that's just the problem.

quote: If others feel differently, I understand. However, I think having three consuls was somewhat influenced by life coming up from time to time. I think the theory was that we would always be covered.

This is a good point. What is necessary, I think, is a "I'm going to be absent for x number of days/weeks" from the Consul in question. If the absence stretches over a relatively long period, I think it's not unreasonable to call for a CoC, to replace the absentee for the duration of his or her hiatus.


Dominae

	27-05-2003 14:07									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen the following points have been scratched: 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. This is absolutely preposterous. People have been complaining all along that they've been left out and now you want to modify the constitution to give the Consuls even more power than they already have? I have no problems with the legal framework used at this moment for Consulship, as I said in the other thread, I prefer this to be an oligarchy than a representative democracy precisely for time reasons. However, giving the Consuls such power even over the Ministers is ludicrous!

Again, I wonder what was wrong with the "Team Structure" thread... since I said, in a non-formal language, exactly the same there as I said in this Constitution draft, yet nobody found the points "preposterous"...

Not sure if you noticed, MasterZen, but things came to a moment where our Ministers were unable to agree on a common plan - each of them pushing more or less his own way or knowing not where to push. If there is no authority to tell them what the plan is and what the goal they are supposed to achieve is, then we will forever be stuck with a non-functional system of government.

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen By scratching point 3 you are basically saying the Consuls are immune from any form of senatorial decision, this of course assumes that every Consul decision is always and will always be 100% correct. Sorry, wrong.

Consuls are not immune to CoC votes. That's how the Senate expresses the desire to follow a different course of action from the one supported by the Consul/s. I am NOT assuming Consular decisions are/will always be 100% correct (I actually assume almost NO decisions will be 100% "correct", as they are always based upon information subject to interpretation). I have explained the reasons leading me to propose the omission of this part (the need for flexibility in emergency situations) earlier in this thread. I am cool with keeping the "law" thingy if provided with an emergency mechanism (like Consuls & Ministers able to override it - see BF's proposal).

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen As for point 4, this is basically saying that the Ministers will only hold an "advisory" position, nothing else.

Yes. Exactly.

That is the primary reason for proposing the Constitution revision. Sorry I failed to make that obvious.

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen Why have Ministers then in the first place? If Ministerial decisions aren't definitive (backed up by public opinion of course) then this turns into basically a 3-man team. If you are doing this to avoid the bickering that occurs in every tema (MoW says this FAM says that,), then I belive such disputes (which are rather infrecuent) be considered unforseen circumstances as the original constitution so plainly said and the Consuls be free to break that deadlock, but only when there are such deadlock.

The proposed role of Ministers and reason leading the Consuls to proposing the clarification has been explained in detail in the "Team Structure" thread.

	27-05-2003 14:15									#44
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Not sure if you noticed, MasterZen, but things came to a moment where our Ministers were unable to agree on a common plan - each of them pushing more or less his own way or knowing not where to push. If there is no authority to tell them what the plan is and what the goal they are supposed to achieve is, then we will forever be stuck with a non-functional system of government.

IMO, that's the "unforseen circumstances" that the Constitution refers to. During the grand majority of turns there has been more or less agreements in policy so I see these things as an exception, not the norm. When such disagreements occur, I totally agree in giving the Consuls such power as to decide on a final definitive outcome, however, changing the line to imply that this power is permanent and ever-present is to me just taking from the decision-process of the team.

	27-05-2003 14:40									#45
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen IMO, that's the "unforseen circumstances" that the Constitution refers to. During the grand majority of turns there has been more or less agreements in policy so I see these things as an exception, not the norm. When such disagreements occur, I totally agree in giving the Consuls such power as to decide on a final definitive outcome, however, changing the line to imply that this power is permanent and ever-present is to me just taking from the decision-process of the team.

Nope, we are talking different things. Elementary decisions on the turn level are a non-issue (those can be solved by including an emergency mechanism). It is a long term strategy or plan that is the problem. We need to follow a coherent plan, unless our team goal is to fail miserably in this game.

With the MoI pushing for more granaries/workers and a peaceful buildup, with MoW pushing for more units and an early war, and FAM struggling to do the F.A. based upon the mutually exclusive plans of his colleagues, we are bound to fail. Unless there is an authority granted the power to tell the Ministers: 'THIS is the direction you shall follow. THIS is our goal. Now go and make it happen!", we will never be able to take a meaningful approach to the game. Solving problems only when they show up during the turn play is woefully late...

	27-05-2003 16:05									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dominae nye, I'm trying to improve the team, nothing more. In fact, I've been arguing this very point without Aidun and the other revolutionaries. Dominae

Grrrr. THAT is the kind of thing I have a problem with (not you, Dominae.) If people have a problem, they can step up and speak for themselves. Generally when people say "I represent all the people who are angry, and boy, there are a lot of them" they're just crying for more power. Frankly, I don't really care if that annoys Aidun, because I haven't seen him get very involved besides jumping on the "let's beat Vondrack over the head with a stick" bandwagon. Lemme guess, he took the last 40 turns that I've been around for off?

Whether you like something or not, you stick with the team. THEN, when the opportunity to change something comes up, you have some credibility... unlike the current situation.

	27-05-2003 17:30									#47
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon Grrrr. THAT is the kind of thing I have a problem with (not you, Dominae.) If people have a problem, they can step up and speak for themselves. Generally when people say "I represent all the people who are angry, and boy, there are a lot of them" they're just crying for more power. Frankly, I don't really care if that annoys Aidun, because I haven't seen him get very involved besides jumping on the "let's beat Vondrack over the head with a stick" bandwagon. Lemme guess, he took the last 40 turns that I've been around for off?

This is the limit. I want to say something to all of you, not just Fried-Psitalon or Vondrack

I have really no idea how long I have been away from the game, perhaps it's 40 turns, perhaps longer, perhaos shorter. I wouldn't have come back if ET wouldn't have noticed me that the participation of this game was drastically falling.

THAT was the reason I returned, TO HELP get the participation back to where it was. Not because it all seemed suddenly so interesting, like I wrote in one of my post in ET's participation thread. You see, I have some experience in politics and participation in a political system, thats what this is, is part of that. I can help you and I have tried to do that, but I have experienced I'm talking against a wall here.

You, yes you! You are all complaining that the participation is dropping but you are only pointing your finger to the inactive members.
"Post more in the threads" is what you say.

Stop pointing only to them. You, who are part of the executive, you who are succesful in this game, you have to change someting about yourself too. That is what I have been saying, in various ways. It is but someting you don't want to hear, because you don't like people like me that are pointing at your own faillures.

Really, Vondrack, NYE, and MWIA you have all done good jobs as consuls, you haven't heard me saying anything about that. I believe you are good consuls, but being good consuls, you should, and all members here should, also look at your own faillures and not point at others.


I have achieved that my help is not appreciated now, so I will stop with it now. I don't like to go on like this, bickering and quarreling. I hope but that you will learn about this and think about what happened here.

You are the ones who can change something, you, the active members and nobody else. Don't expect from inactive members that they suddenly begin to post, you have to win them for you.

Keep that in mind.

As Panag said: Together Everyone Achieves More.

One more thing: I'll leave now, but if you need me, you can always PM me.

Farewell,

Aidun

	27-05-2003 19:33									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

I completely agree with Aidun. There is a major problem and we need to make this game more democratic.

*runs and hides before the arguments start flaring up again*