Third Constitutional Committee

[Frankychan]

Bah!

While I agree with Comrade Octavian's, Comrade Chairman's, and Comrade HongHu's opinions on this matter. I cannot fathom how our faction has degenerated into what it is now. While I respect Comrade Chairman's position, I will have to agree with Comrade HongHu in that he has stuck with the Hive from the very beginning. A great deal has happened since my return, and for that I am sorry.

What I can't understand is that now that we seem to be the faction on Planet most suitable to rule, our citizens are bickering amongst ourselves when we should be united in our decisions. This inner turmoil bullsh** is one reason why democracy DOESN'T work. Everyone has their opinion, and according to the Human Hive's past history, was doing very well until people decided that they wanted to have a direct piece of the action.

I cannot agree nor disagree with this, because I DO believe that each of us should be allowed to voice our opinion on what direction the Human Hive is going, but everyone should still be aware that one's opinion may not be the best course for us to take.

Enough of this for now. I think the Human Hive was going very well but this dissent looks like it may rip ourselves apart....something that would royally piss me off. But as I said when I first joined the Human Hive, I'm still a loyal citizen until the end.

----and that's all I have to say about that.-----

[Enigma_Nova]

Use whatever you want as a base but don't be so tied down by laws.
Realistically we don't need laws here, save for exploring ahead and multiple turns.

I still advocate an idea where people would each judge right from wrong then create their own plan of action.
But people are not used to thinking, and people are lazy.

There should be at least some way to put the working, intelligent people like myself on a pedestal, or at least to mitigate the power of those that would rather be told what to do.

I don't see the need for a 'chairman'. Why do we need an alpha dude, anyway? We can all make judgement, and post a poll if there is contradiction, right?

I support Anarchy because I believe any and all government stifles the people's ability to create their own agenda and pass judgement for themselves - something which would work well in a game of wits such as this.

Of course if the government you propose still leaves a LOT of scope for personal freedom I'll probably agree.
What I disagree with is an omnipotent chairman. The forum needs a moderator, and we do need folk that can handle the legal mumbo jumbo.
But why create false gods to rule over us?
Why do we need a leader when we can all lead ourselves?
Why does the will of The Hive need to be personified? It is there in spirit in all of us.

Enigma_Nova, burdened by hatred but unburdened by the foolishness of old earth.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
But why create false gods to rule over us?

My sentiments exactly.
Instead, you can let me rule over you

[Enigma_Nova]

>_<
Walked into that one.

waits for tassadar to hand him what's left of his ass

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
>_<
Walked into that one.

waits for tassadar to hand him what's left of his ass

PWND!!!!111!!!1

[Enigma_Nova]

Don't be so lazy!!one!eleven

[Snowflake]

I would like to join in with Comrades Frankychan and Mead to ask Chairman Voltaire not to resign. You have done a great job from the very beginning and the Hive will not have its greatness as of today without your leadership.

To answer Enigma's question, we need a chairman to be the forum moderator, to authorize people, to lock, delete and top threads. We also need the chairman to lead the people in spirit, to unite people, and to represent the direction of the team in game. The Chairman does not have to make decisions regarding each details of the game. In fact, minor decisions could be left to the corresponding people who is responsible for that aspect of the game, and major decisions should be decided based upon the will of the people.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by HongHu
To answer Enigma's question, we need a chairman to be the forum moderator, to authorize people, to lock, delete and top threads.

I know this. But we'd call such a person a 'moderator', and not a chairman.

We also need the chairman to lead the people in spirit, to unite people, and to represent the direction of the team in game.

We ARE the people. -We- make the direction. It is -our- spirit.
Surely we don't need some man sitting at a desk to convince us to work for what we believe in.

Enigma still advocates minimal government, so people govern themselves and so grow stronger and wiser

[Snowflake]

If people are all like you, imagine the direction we would be making.
/me sees a picture where many people pulls a tied knot in many directions.

[Frankychan]

No offense Comrade Enigma_Nova, but if you don't like the idea of a "chairman", why did you join the Hive in the first place?

I know that this IS a democracy game, but shouldn't your decision in joining a specific faction represent your own belief system? I personally believe that having a "chairman" instead of a "moderator" keeps the spirit that is the Human Hive intact as well as gives this democracy game a bit of flavor that goes beyond it being "just a game".

I support Anarchy because I believe any and all government stifles the people's ability to create their own agenda and pass judgement for themselves - something which would work well in a game of wits such as this.

If you truly believe in this statement, again, I ask why did you join the Human Hive? As stated before, I am not attacking nor discrediting your own opinions, but I do believe that we do need a strong government to make sense of all of our demands/questions/comments/etc.

So far our government has done a good job (IMHO) of getting all of our inputs together, no matter how divergent they may be, and coming out with a reasonable final product.

Again, I totally agree with Comrade HongHu's statement. We'd all be trying to go in different directions with a net result of 0. THAT is not what the Hive is about. Making a small personal concession so that the whole can benefit IS what the Hive is about.

Once more, while I respect your opinion Comrade Enigma_Nova, I don't agree with it.

[Jamski]

We need a chairman because we need to have someone to make the final desisions, and we need someone to blame when it goes wrong.

-Jam

[Mead]

Originally posted by HongHu
I would like to join in with Comrades Frankychan and Mead to ask Chairman Voltaire not to resign. You have done a great job from the very beginning and the Hive will not have its greatness as of today without your leadership.

To answer Enigma's question, we need a chairman to be the forum moderator, to authorize people, to lock, delete and top threads. We also need the chairman to lead the people in spirit, to unite people, and to represent the direction of the team in game. The Chairman does not have to make decisions regarding each details of the game. In fact, minor decisions could be left to the corresponding people who is responsible for that aspect of the game, and major decisions should be decided based upon the will of the people.

WAIT A MINUTE.

I DID NOT QUITE REALIZE THAT THE CHAIRMAN ACTED AS MODERATOR.

THAT POSITION HAS REAL POWER TO DO GOOD AS WELL AS EVIL.

Although some of us don't like Voltaire, and some of us would like the power for ourselves, I think all of us would agree that Voltaire has served honorably, and fairly as Chairman and moderator.

Some of you have had issues with him in the past, but from what I have seen in the past few weeks I have been here, is that he has not used his ability to edit your posts to silence you. It looks like he has delegated a lot of power and responsibility, not hogged it.

To others who are unhappy and seek to replace him. Think hard before you do. He has been emotionally well-balanced, honest, and has worked hard and well to ensure the operation of the Hive. He has not hogged the turn, wantonly edited or deleted posts (even ones that were very, in several cases unfairly, critical of him), and he has been patient with us all. From what I have seen he has treated all those within the Hive with maturity, toleration, and respect.

I have been happy with him. To those who are not, please think of who else you want and trust to carry out the work, before you let him resign. It could be a lot worse for all of us.

I do believe that developing additional leadership within the Hive is a good idea. But, before we (if we) let him resign, let's have a procedure in place to orderly transfer the Chairmanship to a successor, as well as the mechanics to recall (replace) the new Chairman if the new Chairman proves unsuitable.



Mead

[Snowflake]

Very well said, Comrade Mead.

[Voltaire]

Thank you for the support to those who have given it, but my resignation remains in effect; I will honor my word and let the people have a democracy and democratically decide their leader.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Frankychan
No offense Comrade Enigma_Nova, but if you don't like the idea of a "chairman", why did you join the Hive in the first place?

It involves an apprenticeship with Kody.

but shouldn't your decision in joining a specific faction represent your own belief system?

'cuz then it would be a PBEM.

I personally believe that having a "chairman" instead of a "moderator" keeps the spirit that is the Human Hive intact as well as gives this democracy game a bit of flavor that goes beyond it being "just a game".

And of course, there's an RP element in all this.
But why make a leap from the Roleplaying to the Real? Surely The Hive has an RP chairman, but does this justify it having an administrator?

Meh... I see your point. I shall keep my own government system on hold until the next DG, where I will unleash it.

If you truly believe in this statement, again, I ask why did you join the Human Hive?

Whereever I go, I will find something that can be improved.
I guess I like the Elitism of this place.

but I do believe that we do need a strong government to make sense of all of our demands/questions/comments/etc.

And I did swear to work on a system that stifles no man, did I not?
Well, if this strong government does not stifle the ability of people to pick faults with it then I suppose both our needs are met.
However, as men have egoes so too do governments have egoes, and hate to be criticised.

Why join The Hive if I want to question my rulers?
It's mainly the Kody apprenticeship. In hindsight I should be with the Free Drones.

Again, I totally agree with Comrade HongHu's statement. We'd all be trying to go in different directions with a net result of 0.

If we agreed on a goal this would not be the case.
However I can see this sort of thing happening with Foreign relations.
For whatever reason people support their own viewpoint, and thus we would never reach a conclusion.
When your opinions are as stifled as mine are (already I've had a few Hiverians insulting my intelligence for suggesting an intellectual revolution), you do tend to get a bit upset at democracy.

So, I work towards a system where my beliefs are not downtrodden. While I am farmiliar with the flaws of Anarchy in a demo game, I am also aware of the flaws of Democracy.
I intend to engineer a system where no man is stifled as I was in the past - and a system with rules and regulations (that I would not normally follow) is stifling.

If you want me to be specific, what I resent about the current system is that there is 1 man with a lot of power (IMO all opinions shoulf have power) and differences are resolved by siding with the majority (as opposed to negotiating an amicable solution for all parties).
Sure, all men will be stifled whenever there's a conflict of interest, but I get tirelessly peeved when I'm consistently shut out. (Take note that it has made me lust for revolution, see sig)

Anarchy isn't the only solution, but I fear a solution with rules and regulations will appeal more to the conformist than to the idealist.
Let no decision stifle any man, that is my main goal
And let no man be stifled against his will for the backup.
While people have the ability to be jerks I am of the opinion that such a race of people does not exist here.

In short, I push for a system where I won't undergo the same frustration of times past on Earth, basically having my ingenious and nonconformist ideas being OWNED by the stupid mob.
Democracy runs on the stupid mob. Despotism runs on their leaders, so either way the mob wins out.

I suppose I'll have to bear it... for now. But I am working on a governmental system where such creativity is rewarded.

Making a small personal concession so that the whole can benefit IS what the Hive is about.

Take note that what 'benefits' the whole is usually judged by the Chairman.
There are many ways for an amoeba to evolve and so too there are many things that can 'benefit' the Hive.
By unilaterally proclaiming 'The Right Way' you can stomp on those who have other ideas (which may well work).

Enigma has gone back to the lab to work on his 'Free Spirits' political system

[Voltaire]

Enigma has gone back to the lab to work on his 'Free Spirits' political system

Brings back so many fond memories of Nietzsche.

[Snowflake]

Dear Enigma, well I appreciate your motivated spirit in making everything better, I beg you to try improve your skills in working with the team. I'm not going to run for the Chairman but I will try to advocate that in any constitution such clause should be included:
Each citizen has the right to express his own opinion within the team. However, he should not work against the teams decision outside of the team.
An example would be if we decide to permpact with Drones, people can very well express their opinions about breaking the pact inside the team but before the team changes its stance please refrain from intentional actions that moves toward that direction.

Also, I have to say that no matter what system we have, if everybody can work together, the things gets done easier. I really hope I don't need to spend 90% of my time again simply trying to pull everybody together. If you really want to see this team win as a democratic game team, please try your hardest to work with people. I know with your intelligent level, you can do it if you really try.

I hope your energy will make this team better. Your previous conduct has not exactly served this purpose. I hate to say this but if you prove that you cannot work within the team, I will have to ask for a revote on turn players. I hope the team can depend on your intelligence, not be disrupted because of it.

[Octavian X]

That said, I'm going to do something very uncreative and introduce, as a proposal, a system of government that has been very sucessful in the past, more specifically for the Apolyton team of the intersite team democracy game.

1. The Consuls
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Three Citizens shall be elected as Consuls.
      
      
      
      
      
      1. Initial elections will occur upon ratification of this Constitution.
         
         
      2. 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.
         
         
      3. Each month, one of the three Consul positions shall come up for election.
         
         
      4. Consul positions which have never undergone scheduled elections shall undergo scheduled elections once per month in order of the tenure of the position's occupant until all Consul positions have undergone scheduled elections.
         
         
      5. Once all Consul positions have undergone scheduled elections, the Consul position up for election each month shall be the one which has gone 3 months since its last scheduled election.
         
         
      6. Any citizen who is not holding another Consul position may become a candidate.
         
         
      7. Candidates for scheduled Consular elections must announce their candidacy by the 4th day of the month.
         
         
      8. Scheduled Consular elections will be held for 72 hours starting on the 7th of the month.
         
         
      9. If a single candidate obtains a majority of votes in the first vote, he will be the new Consul.
         
         
      10. If no candidate achieves a majority of the votes, then a second vote will immediatley be held for 48 hours between the two leading candidates of the first vote. If a tie on the first vote prevents only two candidates from being chosen for the second vote, then any ties will be broken by a vote of the the other Consuls and the three ministers until there are only two leading candidates available for the second vote.
          
          
      11. If there is a tie vote and only two candidates have received votes, the current holder of the Consul office will break the tie.
          
          
      12. If a Change of Command (CoC) is successfully exercised against a sitting Consul, the citizen who becomes Consul will fill that Consul position until the next scheduled election for the position rather than receiving his own 3-month term from the date of the CoC.
          
          
      
      
      
   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. The Consuls have the power to rule on senatorial disputes in a manner they see fit.
      
      
   6. Consuls may only be removed from office by a vote of No-Confidence.
      
      
   7. The Consuls appoint Ministers.
      
      
   8. A Consul may appoint a replacement Consul for himself for up to a two week period of time so that vacations and other such short term absences won't interupt the game. Before the absence the Consul shall start a thread naming a replacement and the replacement shall accept before it is considered official. Upon returning from the absence, the Consul needs only to post that he has returned and state that he is relieving the replacement of his duties in order to reclaim the Consulship. The replacement Consul has all powers and responsibilities of a regular Consul except that he may not call a CoC on himself nor may any other team member call a CoC on the replacement.
      
      
   
   
   
2. Minister of Defense
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of Defense.
      
      
   2. The Minister of Defense advises on the movement and engagement of combat and scouting units.
      
      
   3. The Minister of Defense advises on the upgrading of units.
      
      
   
   
   
   
   
3. Minister of the Interior
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of the Interior.
      
      
   2. The Minister of the Interior advises on the movement and usage of all workers and settlers.
      
      
   3. The Minister of the Interior advises on the Science and Luxury Sliders, the treasury, and the direction of science research.
      
      
   4. The Minister of the Interior advises on the management of all city citizens.
      
      
   5. The Minister of the Interior may draw boundaries and regions within the nation and appoint governors over those regions.
      
      
   6. The Minister of the Interior advises on the management of all city build queues, including the rushing of projects.
      
      
   7. The Minister of the Interior may create or alter any system for naming all cities, provinces, geographic features, and so forth.
      
      
   
   
   
   
   
4. Minister of Foreign Affairs
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
      
      
   2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs gives lead to diplomatic affairs with other nations. He may appoint ambassadors to assist him.
      
      
   3. The Minister of Foreign Affairs advises on the establishment of Embassies.
      
      
   4. The Minister of Foreign Affairs advises on Espionage affairs.
      
      
   5. The Minister of Foreign Affairs advises on the engagements of Treaties with other nations.
      
      
   
   
   
   
   
5. Minister of Information
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of Information.
      
      
   2. The Minister of Information is responsible for the timely availability of game-related information to the People.
      
      
   
   
   
   
   
6. Senatorial Procedure
   
   
   
   
   
   1. All members of the team who are not Consuls are Senators.
      
      
   2. The Senate has the power to create law, which the Consuls must follow.
      
      
      
      
      
      1. 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.
         
         
      2. The Bill must be passed by a simple majority, 50% plus 1, to become a law.
         
         
      3. All bills must be open for at least 48 hours.
         
         
      
      
      
   3. The Senate has the power to take a proposal for Change of Command (CoC).
      
      
      
      
      
      1. Any Senator may proclaim a Change of Command proposal on an elected official.
         
         
      2. The Senator must state the elected official he is intending to remove from office in the first post - this is called the 'initial proposal'.
         
         
      3. During 48 hours after the initial proposal, any number of candidates may apply for the job. The Senator himself may or may not apply.
         
         
      4. After the first 48 hours, but within 72 hours, the Senator must organize a vote - this is called the 'replacement proposal'. If this vote is not organized within this time, the CoC is nulled.
         
         
      5. The replacement proposal vote must be open for 72 hours.
         
         
      6. The replacement proposal vote must include all candidates, plus the person who was the subject of the initial proposal, unless this person indicates otherwise.
         
         
      7. The CoC vote shall be done with a preferential ballot. The person with the highest outcome wins the election.
         
         
      8. An elected official may only propose a Change of Command vote on himself, and not on another one.
         
         
      9. Any elected official may not be the subject of a CoC for five turns after his election.
         
         
      
      
      
   
   
   

[Snowflake]

Like the consul idea. Hope there will not be a lot of laws.

[Voltaire]

I have little objection to the proposed draft, except might I suggest we also add a Tribune of the Plebs that would have veto power over Senatorial decisions, as well as to draft laws for approval by the Senate? This would temper the power of the Senate.

[Jamski]

I like it. And I like the Tribune too.

-Jam

[Enigma_Nova]

"All members of the team who are not Consuls are Senators."

So the pleb tribune -is- the senate.
I shall now present you all with your medals of ignorance.
Enigma hands you both a shiny medal

[Enigma_Nova]

Okay... learning new HTML tags every day.

1. The Consuls
   
   
   
   
   
   1. Three Citizens shall be elected as Consuls.
      
      The problem I see here is a static, unfixed, changing number. 3. It should be in our interests to raise and lower this number. Consuls are turn players, law enactors, and by the looks of things, moderators. I support a multiskilled position.
      
      
      
      
      1. Initial elections will occur upon ratification of this Constitution.
         
         
      2. 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.
         
         
      3. Each month, one of the three Consul positions shall come up for election.
         
         Again I don't like this. This encourages lethargy on two tiers:
         1. Your consul may work less hard on the premise that his job will be under threat
         2. Your people may pay less attention to what the consuls are doing on account of everything cleared up each month.
         The easiest way to solve this is that there must be grounds for an election, and dare I say, debate.
         People must argue why a current person is to be replaced and likewise argue why the person is not to be replaced.
         
      4. Consul positions which have never undergone scheduled elections shall undergo scheduled elections once per month in order of the tenure of the position's occupant until all Consul positions have undergone scheduled elections.
         
         
      5. Once all Consul positions have undergone scheduled elections, the Consul position up for election each month shall be the one which has gone 3 months since its last scheduled election.
         
         
      6. Any citizen who is not holding another Consul position may become a candidate.
         
         
      7. Candidates for scheduled Consular elections must announce their candidacy by the 4th day of the month.
         
         
      8. Scheduled Consular elections will be held for 72 hours starting on the 7th of the month.
         
         You know... it would be better if we do this biweekly instead of monthly (and make the time adaptive). More change == greater dynamic element. To win, we must be flexible, readily adaptable, and easily learning. Perhaps moreso than most people are comfortable with.
         Even a turn-ly election would work well. If nothing else, it gets the postcounts up, and that's always a bonus.
         
      9. If a single candidate obtains a majority of votes in the first vote, he will be the new Consul.
         
         
      10. If no candidate achieves a majority of the votes, then a second vote will immediatley be held for 48 hours between the two leading candidates of the first vote. If a tie on the first vote prevents only two candidates from being chosen for the second vote, then any ties will be broken by a vote of the the other Consuls and the three ministers until there are only two leading candidates available for the second vote.
          
          
      11. If there is a tie vote and only two candidates have received votes, the current holder of the Consul office will break the tie.
          
          
      12. If a Change of Command (CoC) is successfully exercised against a sitting Consul, the citizen who becomes Consul will fill that Consul position until the next scheduled election for the position rather than receiving his own 3-month term from the date of the CoC.
          
          
      
      
      
   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.
      
      Of course these Consuls can opt to alter the law by simple vote... do not presume things are set in stone.
      
   4. The Consuls should follow legal minister orders unless forced by unforseen circumstances.
      
      
   5. The Consuls have the power to rule on senatorial disputes in a manner they see fit.
      
      
   6. Consuls may only be removed from office by a vote of No-Confidence.
      
      
   7. The Consuls appoint Ministers.
      
      They should also be able to invent their own ministerial positions. (This ties in with the option to increase or reduce the number of consuls)
      
   8. A Consul may appoint a replacement Consul for himself for up to a two week period of time so that vacations and other such short term absences won't interupt the game. Before the absence the Consul shall start a thread naming a replacement and the replacement shall accept before it is considered official. Upon returning from the absence, the Consul needs only to post that he has returned and state that he is relieving the replacement of his duties in order to reclaim the Consulship. The replacement Consul has all powers and responsibilities of a regular Consul except that he may not call a CoC on himself nor may any other team member call a CoC on the replacement.
      
      
   
   
   
2. Minister of Defense
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of Defense.
      
      
   2. The Minister of Defense advises on the movement and engagement of combat and scouting units.
      
      
   3. The Minister of Defense advises on the upgrading of units.
      
      
   
   
   
   
   
3. Minister of the Interior
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of the Interior.
      
      
   2. The Minister of the Interior advises on the movement and usage of all workers and settlers.
      
      
   3. The Minister of the Interior advises on the Science and Luxury Sliders, the treasury, and the direction of science research.
      
      
   4. The Minister of the Interior advises on the management of all city citizens.
      
      
   5. The Minister of the Interior may draw boundaries and regions within the nation and appoint governors over those regions.
      
      
   6. The Minister of the Interior advises on the management of all city build queues, including the rushing of projects.
      
      
   7. The Minister of the Interior may create or alter any system for naming all cities, provinces, geographic features, and so forth.
      
      
   
   
   
   
   
4. Minister of Foreign Affairs
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
      
      
   2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs gives lead to diplomatic affairs with other nations. He may appoint ambassadors to assist him.
      
      
   3. The Minister of Foreign Affairs advises on the establishment of Embassies.
      
      
   4. The Minister of Foreign Affairs advises on Espionage affairs.
      
      
   5. The Minister of Foreign Affairs advises on the engagements of Treaties with other nations.
      
      
   
   
   That's nice but all 3 positions tie in together...
   And NOTE WELL that these should -NOT- be unitous positions. Every position should have a double-checker, and once again the number of folk in such a position could be increased or decreased by vote.
   I would move for a person being able to hold all 3 positions. If two people can do this, then it will be a decently effective team.
   
   
   
5. Minister of Information
   
   
   
   
   
   1. One Citizen shall be appointed as Minister of Information.
      
      
   2. The Minister of Information is responsible for the timely availability of game-related information to the People.
      
      
   
   
   
   
   
6. Senatorial Procedure
   
   
   
   
   
   1. All members of the team who are not Consuls are Senators.
      
      
   2. The Senate has the power to create law, which the Consuls must follow.
      
      
      
      
      
      1. 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.
         
         
      2. The Bill must be passed by a simple majority, 50% plus 1, to become a law.
         
         
      3. All bills must be open for at least 48 hours.
         
         
      
      
      
   3. The Senate has the power to take a proposal for Change of Command (CoC).
      
      
      
      
      
      1. Any Senator may proclaim a Change of Command proposal on an elected official.
         
         
      2. The Senator must state the elected official he is intending to remove from office in the first post - this is called the 'initial proposal'.
         
         
      3. During 48 hours after the initial proposal, any number of candidates may apply for the job. The Senator himself may or may not apply.
         
         Change that to the couper MAY apply.
         
      4. After the first 48 hours, but within 72 hours, the Senator must organize a vote - this is called the 'replacement proposal'. If this vote is not organized within this time, the CoC is nulled.
         
         
      5. The replacement proposal vote must be open for 72 hours.
         
         
      6. The replacement proposal vote must include all candidates, plus the person who was the subject of the initial proposal, unless this person indicates otherwise.
         
         
      7. The CoC vote shall be done with a preferential ballot. The person with the highest outcome wins the election.
         
         
      8. An elected official may only propose a Change of Command vote on himself, and not on another one.
         
         
      9. Any elected official may not be the subject of a CoC for five turns after his election.
         
         
      
      
      
   
   
   

[Voltaire]

The problem I see here is a static, unfixed, changing number. 3. It should be in our interests to raise and lower this number. Consuls are turn players, law enactors, and by the looks of things, moderators. I support a multiskilled position.

I suggest making the number of Councils 2, in keeping with collegiality, seeing as we are low on members as it stands this would better suite out situation. Though the point Enigma raises does have merit, hence I suggest that the Senate be able to appoint an Interrex to serve in either the absence of the Councils, if they are found incapable of performing their duties, or with the Councils if found that assistance it needed. This allows for both stability and flexibility.

Again I don't like this. This encourages lethargy on two tiers:
1. Your consul may work less hard on the premise that his job will be under threat
2. Your people may pay less attention to what the consuls are doing on account of everything cleared up each month.
The easiest way to solve this is that there must be grounds for an election, and dare I say, debate.
People must argue why a current person is to be replaced and likewise argue why the person is not to be replaced.

Here too a valid points seems made, though I would prefer a simpler solution, if the collegiality is adopted then let both councils stand for re-election at the end of their given term. Also, I would prefer it if they did not stand unopposed hence candidates each month should stand against the Councils in order to keep them on guard and to facilitate debate on their actions during their term in office.

You know... it would be better if we do this biweekly instead of monthly (and make the time adaptive). More change == greater dynamic element. To win, we must be flexible, readily adaptable, and easily learning. Perhaps moreso than most people are comfortable with.
Even a turn-ly election would work well. If nothing else, it gets the postcounts up, and that's always a bonus.

I do not see the necessity of this, and a monthly term would allow the Councils time enough to do their jobs and effect change. Besides, enough activity will be generated by the other bodies of government, such as the Senate, which will have the power to issue decrees.

Of course these Consuls can opt to alter the law by simple vote... do not presume things are set in stone.

Indeed, Senatorial decrees should not be able to affect the powers of a Council while in office, if they so wish the Council can not abide by Senatorial decrees of laws. The position of the Tribute of the Plebes would serve to keep the government in check, though the Senate is not bound by the will of the Councils, and the Councils not by the decrees of the Senate, let all stand before the veto of the Tribune.

Consuls may only be removed from office by a vote of No-Confidence.

The Consuls appoint Ministers.

They should also be able to invent their own ministerial positions. (This ties in with the option to increase or reduce the number of consuls)

I take issue with all this. I propose that that the powers of the Councils in office be uncontested for the duration of their term. Furthermore it might be more in lines of the new democracy created to have all magistrates elected,, so if a Council wanted to have a particular team of magistrates in their term in office they would have to organize a campaign and try to get their magistrates elected.

But I would give the power to the Councils to define the jobs of the Magistrates elected, hence I see no reason for someone to stand for a particular office, rather they get elected as a whole and then get appointed to an office. The Councils would be free to define the parameters of the office.

Also I would like to see the Councils represent the State aboard, the Magistrates should solely deal with internal affairs.

Lastly, it might be prudent to see an elected judiciary as well; the position of Praetors in the judiciary should be akin to the Councils in administration, in that they are secure in their term of office, but only deal with judicial matters. Though they too, of course, would be subject to the veto of the Tribune of the Plebs.

[Enigma_Nova]

Voltaire:
NOTE 1: Consuls, not Councils.
NOTE 2: If you're not a Consul, you're a Senator.
Why would you need a Plebian Throng to regulate them?
I have a better idea:
How about, Every member is a Senator, and some Senators are Consuls.
Then, by virtue of everyone being part of the group, you have your plebian association (just under a different name).

Originally posted by Voltaire
I suggest making the number of Councils 2, in keeping with collegiality, seeing as we are low on members as it stands this would better suite out situation.

2 it is, but if there is a potentially powerful 3rd member we should also let him or her in.
Not to actually suggest we'll have 20% of our active populous participating in the leadership, of course. It's just something to think about.

I suggest that the Senate be able to appoint an Interrex to serve in either the absence of the Councils, if they are found incapable of performing their duties, or with the Councils if found that assistance it needed. This allows for both stability and flexibility.

Already covered.
1. A consul can appoint a temporary replacement
2. A consul can be removed by a vote of no confidence, at which point a new consul can be appointed.
3. A consul can appoint ministers

Here too a valid points seems made, though I would prefer a simpler solution, if the collegiality is adopted then let both councils stand for re-election at the end of their given term.

I like it. A 4-week term seems okay to me, but note that WE MUST KEEP THE VOTES OF NO CONFIDENCE.
The ability of the people to remove problems must be maintained! If a consul is a problem we must be able to remove him (or her).

Also, I would prefer it if they did not stand unopposed hence candidates each month should stand against the Councils in order to keep them on guard and to facilitate debate on their actions during their term in office.

1. A person must nominate themselves to oppose the consul.
2. A person must have shown an ability and desire to use the power of the consul position to become a consul.
Those ammendments seem okay to me.
3. In the event that a consul is ineffective and no person shows the willingness or ability to be a consul then the number of consuls is reduced by 1.
4. If the number of consuls is 0, the government is considered dissolved.
That's your emergency situation covered.

I do not see the necessity of this, and a monthly term would allow the Councils time enough to do their jobs and effect change. Besides, enough activity will be generated by the other bodies of government, such as the Senate, which will have the power to issue decrees.

That's true, but you don't have to be a Consul to enact change.
Any senator (which is ANY HIVE MEMBER if you're not following along) can propose anything, at any time.
Of course only the Consuls can moderate the forum or play the turn with the advice, but you don't have to have power to show that you would be effective in using it.

Indeed, Senatorial decrees should not be able to affect the powers of a Council while in office,

I disagree. Power to the Senate, people should be able to change the system and update the system in any and all circumstances.
If this means increasing or decreasing the powers of a consul so be it - it is better to be able to fix things when they're first sighted as problems, fresh in our minds, than to wait half a month then try to enact change when everyone's forgotten about what they're changing.

if they so wish the Council can not abide by Senatorial decrees of laws.

*cough* Under the presumption that our people are able to make intelligent decisions, no law need be ignored.
And again, power to the hiverian people (Which is The Senate, in case you're not following along).
We will need a disaster contingency plan in case our people turn out to be nitwits.
1. Let it be possible that a player can be put 'on trial' for such things as being a traitor, being a nitwit, being destructive.
In any case, it must be proven that such a person is a detriment to The Hive. A majority vote of 66% is needed to fire such a person from The Human Hive.
2. If it is general opinion that over 33% of The Hive are holding a 'union' (group of nitwits that don't want to lose the power they don't deserve) then an emergency contingency system is to be put into place as follows:

a. All players are immediately on trial, and must state their reasons for continued presence in The Human Hive.
b. Each player is allowed to vote for ONE person they want to stay in, and ONE person they want to throw out. A player's final score is (#positive votes - #negative votes).
A player may abstain from either vote.
c. Only players with positive scores are allowed to continue playing.
d. This process will repeat until no further players are being thrown out.
e. The surviving players now elect who arrives in The Hive by a simple majoirty (>50%), and play resumes.

We need a disaster contingency plan in case The Hive is shown to be idiotic and lazy - as was revealed as the root of our previous problems.
I call the above procedure a 'universal vote of no confidence'. Nifty, eh?

The position of the Tribute of the Plebes would serve to keep the government in check, though the Senate is not bound by the will of the Councils, and the Councils not by the decrees of the Senate, let all stand before the veto of the Tribune.

You're renaming Senate to Tribune.
Stop that. The old word works fine.

I take issue with all this. I propose that that the powers of the Councils in office be uncontested for the duration of their term.

Players must reserve the right to change what is at err, and solve problems as they appear, not later when people forget about it.
Coup system must remain in effect.
(Adding the premise that the couper himself may take the position)

Furthermore it might be more in lines of the new democracy created to have all magistrates elected,, so if a Council wanted to have a particular team of magistrates in their term in office they would have to organize a campaign and try to get their magistrates elected.

A senatorial poll to create a new position...
Then a senatorial poll to see who fills it.
I like it. It's in.
Of course there's the possibility that someone is an idiot, and so we'll need a disaster contingency plan if they keep proposing things that will muck up the system.

Also I would like to see the Councils represent the State aboard, the Magistrates should solely deal with internal affairs.

Ministers should be able to be appointed to any position.
I suggest we remove those 3 ministerial positions mentioned in the original constitution and vote them in as soon as the new constitution comes up.
Chances are their positions will landslide in, but it gives people a chance to fix any forseeable problems before

Lastly, it might be prudent to see an elected judiciary as well;

They're called The Senate. Everyone's a member.
If you're looking for an elite judiciary, one of the most competant, I suggest culling The Hive until all members are capable of making decisions.

I like my system more: Everyone gets a say, no being swamped with legal mumbo jumbo, and best of all it gives us an excuse to remove our 'lame legs' and remove our 'unions'.

---

I still need a disaster contingency plan in case a stupid or lazy or just plain stubborn majority holds up elections and polls.
('cuz you can't vote em out, now can you?)
The Elimination by Fire system proposed above will remove all infighting in perhaps the most drastic way, and (at the expense of our position atop the turn chart) show the insurgents the error of their ways.

[Octavian X]

I agree with the points that Enigma makes. Let me remind everyone that the reason previous governments failed is that they were overly complex. The reason the old shadow ministry worked, and the reason why the original three consul system worked, was because they were simplistic - no unneccessary bodies, regulations, etc. For the consul system, people were expected to abide by the spirit of the law, and they did so.

[Frankychan]

......well said, Comrade Enigma. (forgot to recheck this thread).


I personally believe in the old system. It worked extremely well in the past, and i believe it will work until the Hive rules Planet under its iron fist.

I guess it's no surprise that I am a loyalist towards the Hiverian government.... but oh well.

Originally posted by Comrade HongHu

Also, I have to say that no matter what system we have, if everybody can work together, the things gets done easier. I really hope I don't need to spend 90% of my time again simply trying to pull everybody together. If you really want to see this team win as a democratic game team, please try your hardest to work with people. I know with your intelligent level, you can do it if you really try.

I hope your energy will make this team better. Your previous conduct has not exactly served this purpose. I hate to say this but if you prove that you cannot work within the team, I will have to ask for a revote on turn players. I hope the team can depend on your intelligence, not be disrupted because of it.

I agree 100%. Unity of the Hive members should be our #1 goal.

As for the new form of government...I think it is ok....but I like the government we have now. IMHO, it is efficient and it's doing its intended job (making the Hive #1).

[Voltaire]

Since I have been vested with the power to implement the new Constitution, whatever form it may take, there will be a constitution put back into place before my term is up. First and foremost continue to give ideas in this thread, since they will all be considered when writing the constitution. Also to make it democratic and fair it would be good if everyone who wants to change the government structure formulate a formal constitution and we can put them all up to a vote, the one the people like the most will be implemented, this will allow everyone to have their voice heard.

-Chairman Voltaire

[Snowflake]

I suggest that the operational part of the consititution should be simple and effective. We have had huge burocratic that doesn't do much. We really need reforms.

[Enigma_Nova]

Copying the Octavian X proposal.
Simplifying it a bit, and adding more ability to change.

I still am not sure about a disaster contingency plan though!