Discussion about the New Constitution - Page 6

notyoueither · October 19, 2002, 05:54

We are reviewing everything that goes on in this thread.

Which ones do you want me to comment on ThePlagueRat?

OPD · October 19, 2002, 07:45

I say we do away with the whole thing and just say.

"we all play the game, but some of us play it more than others."

OPD · October 19, 2002, 08:14

Where does the constitution stand on threads like this one.

Where it has been said that only certain people can post.

Even though there is a discussion going on.

I have opinons on PW stuff so I guess I should say it here.

I think that all none essential workers in eastern regions should be redirected to contagnion to mine the tiles it has, so that the FP can be built quicker.

IMO the FP building should be a top priority and the things being built in contagnion before it should be the top priority for rushings.

GhengisFarb™ · October 19, 2002, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD
I have opinons on PW stuff so I guess I should say it here.

I think that all none essential workers in eastern regions should be redirected to contagnion to mine the tiles it has, so that the FP can be built quicker.

You can post PW ideas and comments here.

Quote:

Originally posted by OPD
IMO the FP building should be a top priority and the things being built in contagnion before it should be the top priority for rushings.

Can't help you with CP stuff, ET has a more "hands-on" style than GK, so suggestions aren't as needed.

ThePlagueRat · October 19, 2002, 08:50

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
We are reviewing everything that goes on in this thread.

Which ones do you want me to comment on ThePlagueRat?

Try to add some democratic principal rule.
Like powersplitting: Senate <-- Cabinet
(principle widely used in RL parliaments)

So, carefully review the government jurisdictions!
The con con should try to extend democracy as far as possible with help of the senate's mandate...

Like this one (?) :

"Government behaviour outside it's jurisdictions* will not be tolerated and will be supressed by the Senate. Any decision by an elected official, not in the interest of the public**,
can be followed by judicial means."

*This will be the power-split between the offices/senate to
extend democracy to it's maximum.

**Prevents elected officials from doing stupid things in-game
as silly diplomacy scandals, and not obeying senate polls on spending, etc. Ok, mainly scandalous behaviour...

Will you add it to the suggestions?

GhengisFarb™ · October 19, 2002, 08:54

Senate Bill voting clause suggestion.

An idea to address the possibility of decisions being made my just a few senators:

"If the number of abstain votes exceeds the number of yea and nay votes combined then the Bill is considered to be invalid."

If more than half the voters on a bill were indifferent then it is probably so insignificant a concept that it does not need to be made a law. Seriously, if there were 60 total votes, 2 yeas, 1 nay, and 57 abstains, it probably doesn't need to go on the books.

ThePlagueRat · October 19, 2002, 09:11

Yeah, let the abstrains count as
"We cannot make a decision on this now."

So your clause would perhaps fit into the
Votation section of the newCon.

Togas · October 19, 2002, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
If more than half the voters on a bill were indifferent then it is probably so insignificant a concept that it does not need to be made a law. Seriously, if there were 60 total votes, 2 yeas, 1 nay, and 57 abstains, it probably doesn't need to go on the books.

I agree, but I can't see this ever happening. Call me an optimist, but I feel that our citizens are too bright to ever let a bad law pass by abstaining. It should be stressed publicly that when you vote, if you don't like a law or don't trust a law, or don't feel it's a good law, vote "no". The law can be rewritten easily. There is little danger in voting against a law. It should also be stressed that if you vote abstain, you are indirectly supporting the passage of this law by adding to the quarum needed to pass it. If you truely don't want to aid the law, but don't want to vote against it, DO NOT VOTE.

Also, if a new law is so insignifiant a concept (like changing a word to another word that sounds better, but means exactly the same), and EVERYONE is abstaining, that means that it doesn't matter if the law gets passed or not. No one cares either way. So what if it gets passed -- the voters ALLOWED it to be passed by clicking on abstain instead of clicking on no.

How many abstains do we normally get in a poll? I just can't see a mass abstain ever happening. It's like discussing what we'll do if Poly goes down for a week to make sure we get our turns done on a regularly scheduled basis.

--Togas

DAVOUT · October 19, 2002, 16:52

I revert to the veto, and make a proposal :

Original :
By agreement of 3 of the following: President, Vice President, Supreme Military Commander, Foreign Affairs Minister, and/or Domestic Minister; any law or decision by the Senate that does not receive a 2/3rd majority vote for passage may be vetoed. A vetoed law or decision is no longer valid. It may be proposed again, however, it will only become valid if it is passed by a 2/3rd majority vote.

Proposal :
By agreement of 2 of the following: President, Supreme Military Commander, Foreign Affairs Minister, and/or Domestic Minister; any law or decision by the Senate concerning any matter within their control may be vetoed. The motives causing the veto, submitted to the Senate in the two days following the closing of the poll, render the law or decision not valid. It may be proposed again, however, it will only become valid if it is passed by a 2/3rd majority vote.

These changes are balanced : they authorize the veto for ALL laws under the condition that they concern matters under the control of the executives; but they make compulsory the motivation explaining why the veto is necessary.

They are also balanced because the VP is no longer concerned, but only 2 executives are enough to initiate a veto. I would personnaly prefer the President in all cases plus one minister concerned.

RP
CITIZENS
DONT LET THE SENATE BE EMASCULATED IN FALLING UNDER THE PROTECTORSHIP OF EXECUTIVES DRUNKEN BY POWER !
RP

GhengisFarb™ · October 19, 2002, 18:08

I don't know if someone else proposed it or not but it seems to make sense for me.

At the end of each election we have a Senator Sign up Thread. Any citizen not holding an elective office simply posts that they wish to be recognized as a Senator.

Make the cutoff 5 days or something and that determines your Senate for that term. New members may have to wait a month to become Senators with the 5 day window but it would make sense for them to observe for a few weeks before initiating Senate Bills anyway.

Trevman · October 20, 2002, 00:08

Probs with the new constitution:

Quote:

4 The Senate has the power to declare war.

Shouldn't the SMC have to approve this or there be some sort of executive consent neccessary. It seems to me that the citizenry can declare war whenever and on whoever they choose despite the nation's preparedness or the minister's plans.

Quote:

(a) Elections shall end 72 hours later on the 15th of every month.

Too short to insure that everyone gets a chance to vote.

Quote:

Immediately after winning the election, the President-elect must appoint a Vice President.

I like to elect my vice-presidents.

Quote:

(c) The Supreme Military Commander must make a request for funds to upgrade any unit. The request must be first made to the Senate and may also be made to the President. If the Senate has not decided the issue prior to the game being played, the President may then decide the issue.

Upgrading has become fairly routine so this is simply not needed especially during war. This is time-consuming and will most likely be approved anyway without debate. Imagine a poll detailing 15 units to upgrade and then 30 options. This would simply be impratical.

Why have you combined the president wtih the economic and science ministers? These are very divergent roles. The president is just there to organize and make last-minute decisions. He is not to create any sort of policy. As we have seen in Apoc's threads, these roles can be quite involving. It would be best if a minister is assigned to each of these new roles to insure that they are as well though out as others for they are no less important to our nations then city planning and war. This just doesn't make sense. And don't tell me that how many ministers the senate can create.

We need term-limits. As we have seen with Uber, a minister can be so popular that others would be afraid to run against him. Without term limits, a pres, vice-pres, and SMC could feasibly be re-elected until the end of the game. This is not really democracy as ministers can effectively establish dictatorships.

Does anyone remember the beginning days when we wanted just a basic outline of the game so that any changes can be made quickly and abnormal situations can be easily dealt with without going through a huge time-consuming bureaucracy? Well, this neo Con effectively halts our game while we must organize to all the changes required in it and be forced through various bureaucratic procedures to handle any issue that a little common sense could handle. We must remember that this is a game. We aren't trying to create a real government just making sure that this game doesn't erupt in chaos which the old CoL was quite adequate for. Still, I have yet to see any argument for why exactly our current CoL needs to be replaced except for a mishap on a turnchat that this new Con vaguely fixes somehow.

Trevman · October 20, 2002, 00:14

Quote:

Originally posted by adaMada
This is EXACTLY right, and the beauty of the law system we've proposed. If the Senate winds up handling the budget day-to-day (though I hope that doesn't happen), they can create a position to do it for them. If the President does, then he can create a Deputy for the job (in fact, I think we even 'strongly recommend'ed that the President create a Deputy of the Economy.) If they want to, they could probably create a joint position that's both a Senate Representative and Presidental Deputy, and make that the cornerstone of budgetary coordination. This is about letting the people have more choice over how they structure their government, not less

-- the NewCon (Ghengis' word, but it works for me unless someone's got something better

) forbids very very little, and the people can pass laws on anything it doesn't mention.

Somehow I picture a madman laughing in the dark, "ahaha, I've created the perfect system!" I don't know why, nothing against you adaMada, but this paragraph makes me strangely uneasy.

Apocalypse · October 20, 2002, 01:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Trevman
Why have you combined the president wtih the economic and science ministers? These are very divergent roles. The president is just there to organize and make last-minute decisions. He is not to create any sort of policy. As we have seen in Apoc's threads, these roles can be quite involving. It would be best if a minister is assigned to each of these new roles to insure that they are as well though out as others for they are no less important to our nations then city planning and war. This just doesn't make sense. And don't tell me that how many ministers the senate can create.

I was the one who first suggested we go this route. The president doesn't have to have power over Science and the Economy. He can appoint advisors to do it for him. This allows for less bias as well as makes the elections more efficient.

All the president has to do is appoint Reddawg to handle economy or me or Thud to handle Science and everything is back to normal.

The senate actually has no power to create these positions.

Trevman · October 20, 2002, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Apocalypse

I was the one who first suggested we go this route. The president doesn't have to have power over Science and the Economy. He can appoint advisors to do it for him. This allows for less bias as well as makes the elections more efficient.

How so?

Quote:

The senate actually has no power to create these positions.

My bad, I see this is purely executive power. I starting to understand this new constitution a little.

Apocalypse · October 20, 2002, 01:32

Say, in the future, I run for president and loose. The person I loose to already has a good VP in mind and I really didn't care about being VP anyway. I could then be appointed Science Advisor. This way I wasn't taken out of the running for being in charge of science soley because I ran for another position.

ThePlagueRat · October 20, 2002, 16:25

Hey, Apoc talks about things to be efficient.
Ok, that's all nice and well.
The thing is: Democracy isn't very efficient.

After having studied the democratic tradition (ancient and modern) and some philosophy,
I would suggest we try to build it the way it was meant by such philosophers.

That could involve Voltaires principles of power-distro,
as stated above. That's why I want my suggestion to be ratified. And it would not necessarily mean efficiency. (though we could figure out something smart)

Apocalypse · October 20, 2002, 16:30

Typically in democratic tradition there had been more than enough people who wanted all the various positions in govenment.

ThePlagueRat · October 20, 2002, 16:42

Yeah, that's also a problem.
It's nothing we can do about it either.

e.g. IRL in my home country we got about 12 different ballots to choose between for all kinds of different parties.
(ranging from communists to right wing extemists)
You need 500 members to establish a party.
But anyway, Norway is a small country...

Also, the principle of parliamentarism is constitutionalized.
It gives our parliament the power to throw out government by votation.

Can we use that principle too?

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 16:49

Trevman,

NO, the SMC should not have to approve a declaration of war made by the people ("The Senate"). The SMC ("the military) exists to implement policy, the policy actually being made by the people themselves. This means that the Senate has (and should) have the sole authority on deciding whether to declare war or not. The SMC, whether he likes it or not, must respect that decision.

This does not bar the SMC for resigning his position if he feels that he can't execute such a war and invite the Senate to find someone who can...

ThePlagueRat · October 20, 2002, 16:59

The chart in the latest editon of the Jungle Gazette,
describes the power distro pretty well.

It's pretty much like the US system.
(can it be that most players live over there?)

Well, I don't think the US system is the best in the world anyway.
The chart was a very nice thing, but it could not show things like:
Votations decided by the Senate which the govt. must follow.

To act lawfully the govt. must follow official polls accordingly.
(e.g. a certain decision in culture/science/military spending.)
Make sure it it written in the newCon!

notyoueither · October 20, 2002, 19:31

Can you imagine Spiffor, Thud, and... dragging Uber or Aggie off to war kicking and screaming?

Arnelos · October 20, 2002, 19:57

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can you imagine Spiffor, Thud, and... dragging Uber or Aggie off to war kicking and screaming?

Precisely why I don't think this is really a worry...

Aggie · October 20, 2002, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Can you imagine Spiffor, Thud, and... dragging Uber or Aggie off to war kicking and screaming?

I find that image hilarious. Actually if the senate did do such a thing, a wise SMC wouldn't resign, he would do what I would, he would not execute the war and once peace was possible it would be made. Remember the senate(as do the people know) does declare war but they can't tell the SMC how the conduct it. The more practical problem for the SMC is getting the people to vote for war. That is why I make and post such precise plans, because here's a rule about democracy. Democracies can be coninced to fight wars if either of these are true
1) The war is convienient and not too disruptive.
The persian gulf war is an example
2) The stakes are so high that people don't mind the sacrifice(The american civil war(and actually these we 2 democracies against each other) is an example and also WWII fits here. Though in the civil war this barely was met and the war could have been shut down politcally if not for some union victories.
The 1st condition is met by wars such as the french/american wars in this game.
The 2nd condition was met during the persian war in our game(Pyramids were worth fighting for) and would be met if we were attacked by another country.
So my job as SMC is to convince the people of either of the above conditions, if I fail I don't get a war and if I do I better make sure it does what is advertised. The fact that I realize that the people must agree gives me creditablilty and thus helps my views get adopted. That is also why I am open about being willing to make peace if the peole overwhelmingly want to. For example, if we attack france I have a war of conquest plan, but if after the 1 few cities the people want peace I will be happy to make it. Remember as the SMC, I am suppose to try to lead the country militarily, but in the end I am still a servant of the people and must bow to their wishes.
Aggie