first draft: constitution changes

DeathByTheSword · September 13, 2002, 07:59

ok this are the changes i propose, you can vote YES or NO. PLEASE VOTE FOR EVERY PROPOSAL:

*every radical order from a director has to be polled.

*if alpha talent if to hardly pressed for time the runner-up alpha talent takes his place.

*in official polls first post no voting answers may be posted.

you have 7 days.

this is not yet official IF you have idea of your self please post them here

MrWhereItsAt · September 13, 2002, 08:06

By the "in the first official post no voting answers may be posted", do you mean that no opinions on the poll can be stated in the first post? Or is it something else? I want to clarify this before voting.

DeathByTheSword · September 13, 2002, 08:08

yes that is what i ment my english is a little rusty but that is what i mean

Method · September 13, 2002, 16:30

if every director order has to be polled, then why wouldn't people just elect any random person? directors should have to make SOME important calls (like during a chat when there's not time to poll for instance) but when doing so should follow the general consensus voiced by citizens if there wasn't an official poll.

Darkness' Edge · September 13, 2002, 20:12

I second TKG's suggestions with director's orders.

I suggest clarifying the first post amendment, changing "voting answers" to "opinions".

Thirdly, I think the suggestion for a new alpha talent here is a little bit flawed.

In the first elections, with the amount of interest, we ended up with a 3-way contest for President. If this ever happens again, it's unlikely it will after a few months - hell, even the Civ3 game is having presidents elected unchallenged at the moment. If the election was a two-horse race, it makes that amendment redundant.

In these circumstances, I supported your taking over as Alpha Talent. But I wouldn't support putting this in the constitution.

I propose that the Alpha Talent is elected, along with all the other posts, and that when the Alpha Talent resigns/is impeached/takes over as Commissioner, the people elect a new alpha talent.

To support this, once again, look at the Civ3 game. MWIA was elected President there last time, unopposed. If they didn't directly elect their VP, there would have been serious problems. We're not as big as that, and we can probably expect unopposed elections to happen sooner rather than later.

Finally, I won't vote here. I don't necessarily oppose DBTS' suggestions - but I want them changed, so I don't support them either.

Method · September 13, 2002, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
I propose that the Alpha Talent is elected, along with all the other posts.

good, but i'd say only if the commissioner election is uncontested. otherwise, a perfectly capable runner-up commissioner would be out of work, while a possibly less qualified person gets to be alpha talent. also we agreed on making the runner-up the alpha talent so that any one party wouldn't have a position as alpha AND commish (even though its seeming more evident now that parties aren't going to do evil just to spite other parties)

MrWhereItsAt · September 13, 2002, 23:14

*every radical order from a director has to be polled.
Yes. Directors should have a little leeway, and not need to poll on every decision (especially when there are zillions of formers/crawlers about), but every DRASTIC decision needs to be polled. If, in a chat there is an important issue that comes up, the chat must stop in light of this new, drastic development. We can't have the small proportion of the voting talents able to make the chat making decision of large magnitude. Quickpolls are all the good for changing the troops movements in light of an unexpected worm appearance (for example), but they are not Constitutional and can only be used for small alterations on already existing orders. Even if the first turn ends and someone attacks us from out of nowhere, we must stop and decide what to do with the full polling system.

*if alpha talent if to hardly pressed for time the runner-up alpha talent takes his place.
No. I am fully happy with an Alpha Talent being able to take over as Commish, but that does not mean I am happy with the next in line getting the same authority. If our backup fails we have a serious problem and I'd prefer either an election where we are voting in the full knowledge that any such candidate may have to take over completely, or a Commish appointment with a confirmation vote by the people. I don't know about everyone else but I voted content in the knowledge that who I was voting for as Commish/Alpha Talent would be able to do the job, and I do not wish to have to accept that all other candidates could possibly end up with the job.

*in official polls first post no voting answers may be posted.
Yes. This is already a standard, it is just putting it into writing (as if we really needed it in writing).

Kassiopeia · September 14, 2002, 00:48

I agree with MWIA... we could just have any person as a Director if they'd have to poll absolutely everything.

Also I'd like to put forward a motion - all the radical order polls that the Directors are to make would last at this time three days, right? Well I would suggest that this be reduced to two days. We would still catch a probably equal amount of the voting populace but the bureaucratic tardiness we suffer from at the moment would ease off.

Darkness' Edge · September 14, 2002, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiopeia
I agree with MWIA... we could just have any person as a Director if they'd have to poll absolutely everything.

Also I'd like to put forward a motion - all the radical order polls that the Directors are to make would last at this time three days, right? Well I would suggest that this be reduced to two days. We would still catch a probably equal amount of the voting populace but the bureaucratic tardiness we suffer from at the moment would ease off.

I'll second that.

Also, I decided to vote on this.
Yes to directors orders (with reservations, I may well change this to a no later on), no to alpha talent, yes to first post.

moomin · September 14, 2002, 10:34

Given how few are actually active here, doesn't fall-through responsibility make some sense?

DeathByTheSword · September 14, 2002, 13:17

i supected this resistance and i am glad that it is there. i fully support Kass idea , they alpha-talent thingy needs to be changed (i only put it in because the way i became AT

) in to elections and the last one is ok by me

DeathByTheSword · September 15, 2002, 06:48

about they polling and desiscion making in turnchats or something. we can make a fully new part in the constitution about the 'rules' in turnchats, or is this to inflexible? i can be very vague if i have to when i am writing

MrWhereItsAt · September 15, 2002, 07:20

Well for small changes to orders in the event of worms, enemy troop movements etc, we could always do a quickpoll of those in the chat. Anything major, once again, needs to be stopped and polled properly for. Of course there are no strict rules even in the Civ3 game about WHAT exactly constitutes a "small change", and I really think we couldn't specify any further than that here.

DeathByTheSword · September 15, 2002, 07:29

ok well that is settled then

, if th people dont like it what has been decided in a chat we will find out soon enough

Darkness' Edge · September 15, 2002, 07:35

I basically agree with MWIA said.

Sure, we don't want something like in the Civ2 game, where our beloved president played about 20 turns without a single poll or sending the savegame to the ministers, but sometimes judgment needs to be taken on whether a decision is important enough.

For instance, in this last turnchat, we ran out of exploration orders when all the other orders still had quite some mileage. So a quickpoll was held, and we voted to go after two nearby pods. No harm done, and it kept the session going so we were able to finish more of our existing orders.