Contitution Article: Poll Scheme

[Pedrunn]

Article: Polls Rules

Invalid Polls:

** Invalid Polls -> Polls are characterized invalid if it does not follow the rules stated in this article or is started by a non-citizen except if unofficial ones (Non-citizens can still post non-poll threads). Must be closed as soon as possible by the Court.

** Valid Polls -> All Polls that follow the rules of this article.

Poll Organization:

**First Post Content:
*Further explanation of the questions and answers
*Expire date
*Link for related threads if any.
*Stated: information gathering or decision making.

There can be created two types of poll organization.
** Yes/No polls -> This kind of poll must have three options so that the citizens can express its opinion:
* yes, meaning that the citzen agreed with what was sated in the poll;
* No, if the citizen does not agree;
* Abstain, if the citizen does not want to opinate about what was stated in the poll

** Multiple choice polls -> This kind of poll organization can have as may option as the poll started wanted. Yet it has to minimum of two options plus an abstain option for those citizens that does not want to opinate about what was stated in the poll.


Poll Types:

There will be 4 types of polls:
1) Elections
2) Official
3) Lawsuits
4) Unofficial

Elections:

** Those are polls started by the Court in wich will be chosen the new leaders of the empire.

** Must have the word “ELLECTION” in the subject line written in capital letters. They are purely decision-making polls.

** They follow the laws written in the election article.

** It has to be a multiple Choice poll with only the names of the candidates. Yes/no polls will be consider invalid.

Official:

** Those polls are the ones stated by people in a government position and is related to the course of the game.

** It must have the word “OFFICIAL” in capital letters in the subjectline, and must be used as information gathering or decision making.

** The Official of the government may or may not follow what was agreed in his poll. In case he doesn’t follow what was agreed by votes in the pool he has to make its decision public otherwise he will be inflicting the seventh clause of the Bill of the Rights and will be dismissed of his position.

** Can be multiple choice and yes/No polls.

Lawsuits

** Those polls are the ones stated by any citizen of the empire including those in governement positions.

** Polls for modifying a certain rule or that clearly affect the couse of the game or the decision of the government policy as a whole. They must contain the word “LAWSUIT” in capital letters in the subjectline,

** Every vote of this thread has to be confirmed by a post of the voter wich he can or cannot tell what he has voted according to it wishs.

** Only the confirmed votes by citizens will be consider valid in the lawsuit process.

** The content of this poll will only be a law or a official procedure if valid voted by half of the citzen of the empire.

** Those have to be Yes/No polls. Multiple Choice lawsuits polls will be consider invalid.

Unofficial:

** Those polls are the ones stated by any citizen of the empire including those in governement positions.

** Those polls are only here to debate or gather information. They don’t affect the game course. The court will be tolerant for polls of this type posted by non-citizens.

** Doenst follow any rule except the Bill of Right Clauses



What you guys think? Any comments?

[Turambar]

Good Stuff Pedrunn!

Couple of points though. I think the Election polls should be created by the outgoing President like the Civ3DG and not by the Court. They should have a fixed length decided before hand too.

How long do people think the current polls should run for?

[mapfi]

Like it - the only thing which isn't clear is what falls under a multiple choice poll. Just having more options or also polls that allow multiple voting (like voting for the first, second and fourth option of that poll).
Because those multiple-voting polls screw up the use of abstain and the percentages displayed are weird I'd either allow that type only for unofficial polls or ban it altogether.
And an always disputed issue - the abstains - shall they be counted as no for acceptance of the poll. I'd say no, just count them to the quorum.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

i want an announcement thread, where all official polls will be announced with link (and no other posts allowed) so you can be informed via the email notification of everything important immeadiately without having to read all forums all the time (like myself today, noticed there's a new forum for the dg about an hour ago)

[DeathByTheSword]

VP (if we are getting that one) is best for elections starting he has not much to do (if we are not getting a VP nevermind! )

[DeathByTheSword]

btw maybe you could check this constitution it is simple and down to the point! (well thats what i think! because i made it for the ACDG)

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=60776

[mapfi]

To change any constitution stuff we should a lawsuit have require 2/3 of the vote, shouldn't we?
Furthermore, if we agree to those rules. I'd say the first elected government would in their first few days of office put up new polls of the game settings and use the previous polls as guidelines to which options to include. The setup of the game is a very important part and we can't allow that to be determined by polls not fulfilling the constitution's requirements, can we?

[Pedrunn]

Like it - the only thing which isn't clear is what falls under a multiple choice poll. Just having more options or also polls that allow multiple voting (like voting for the first, second and fourth option of that poll).
Because those multiple-voting polls screw up the use of abstain and the percentages displayed are weird I'd either allow that type only for unofficial polls or ban it altogether.

I made clear that there can only be the multiple choice (not multiple votings polls) and yes/no polls in the official, ellection, lawsuit poll with specific types for every one of these polls.
Unnoficial polls dont need to follow this rules though so they can have multiple voting polls.
Still keep in mind that multiple voting polls decrease the value of a vote.

btw maybe you could check this constitution it is simple and down to the point! (well thats what i think! because i made it for the ACDG)

Actually this article is based in the ACDG constitution. You may even find copied lines from it.
I just gave my touch to make the democratic process more in evidence. But my only big change was the Lawsuit polls wich i tried to avoid votings from outsiders yet keeping the reformation of the governement policies in the hands of the citizens in an organized way.

To change any constitution stuff we should a lawsuit have require 2/3 of the vote, shouldn't we?

I think more the 50% of the votes would be the best. After all only citizes can vote. And some may not do this always (remember that these thrads looks mor like unnoficial ones than official although is in between).
Because of this i even consider making the lawsuit validation number of votes be 1/3 of the communty but so far 1/2 looks fine.
EDIT: I noticed you wrote 2/3 of the votes in the court contitution part. We need to get to a point.

[Locutus]

Bah, I wanted to reply to this all day but other stuff kept coming up. I *really* need some sleep now, will have elaborate feedback tomorrow evening (have to work all day).

[Pedrunn]

I have found something that many people may consider strange:

** The Official of the government may or may not follow what was agreed in his poll. In case he doesn’t follow what was agreed by votes in the pool he has to make its decision public otherwise he will be inflicting the seventh clause of the Bill of the Rights and will be dismissed of his position.

Thats is because i am assuming we are going to use a Bill of Rights similar to the ACDG one.
This Bill of Right was also used in others DG.

Clause 1: No person shall be denied the right to become a Peacekeeper citizen.
Clause 2: No citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll.
Clause 3: Free speech shall not be abridged unless it violates Apolyton rules.
Clause 4: No one shall be banned permanently from participating in the democracy game, excluding those who are permanently banned from Apolyton. Note that people may still be banned for any amount of time, as long as it is not permanent.
Clause 5: The right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied.
Clause 6: No citizen may be punished in any way without the consent of the court.
Clause 7: The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people.

If not I change this part of the constitution.

Couple of points though. I think the Election polls should be created by the outgoing President like the Civ3DG and not by the Court. They should have a fixed length decided before hand too.

It has been dicussed in the court constitution part that the Court is in-charge of this task.

How long do people think the current polls should run for?

I have left this to be filled later since we didnt decided how much time will be given before the games runs. This is being decided here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=65461

[Immortal Wombat]

Clauses 1 to 6 are virtually impossible for anyone other than a mod to violate. Scrap 'em

[Locutus]

I basically like Pedrunn's article, but there's a lot that I'd like to change/clarify. So rather than commenting point-by-point, I wrote my own article. It's based on that of Pedrunn, the feedback in this thread, the comments in other threads and my own ideas. Awaiting feedback...

One issue I wish to address upfront: the name Law/Lawsuit. I went for Law, but maybe Resolution is a better name (has a nicer ring to it IMHO). In any case, Lawsuit is plain wrong IMHO, as it means "a case before a court" (Webster's Dictionary).



Article: Polling

1. Definition and validity:

(a) All official decision making will be done through polls, in which Citizens can express their opinion on issues. A poll is the standard vBB poll feature in which people can anonymously vote for 1 or more of a list of options.
(b) If the validity of a poll (see section 1(c)) is contested and the Court deems it necessary, this poll may be retaken by sending the vote by Private Message to a member of the Court. This qualifies as a poll as well. The Court may make its own rules of procedure in this matter, as long the rules in this Article are not violated.
(b) Any Poll that is not Unofficial (see section 3) and that violates any of the rules specified in this Article is invalid. The Court has the right to rule over the validity of polls. Invalid polls should be considered Unofficial and may be closed if the Court requests this.

2. Voting Rights:

(a) All Citizens have the right to vote in any poll.
(b) No Citizen shall be forced to vote for any poll.
(c) No Citizen is allowed to vote more than once.
(c) Non-Citizens are not allowed to vote in any poll except Unofficial ones.
(d) When it is known that non-Citizens have voted in a poll and it is also known what they have voted, this poll is valid if the votes by non-Citizens are removed from the final result.
(e) When the things in 2(d) are not known but there is a reasonable suspicion that non-Citizens have voted in a poll, the Court may declare this poll invalid.
(f) Any polls started by non-citizens will be regarded Unofficial and may be closed if the Court requests this.

3. Poll Organization:

(a) The first post of all polls must contain the following elements:
* A clear and unbiased explanation of the question and the answers, if needed;
* Expiration date, if applicable;
* Links to related threads or other information sources, if any;
* Type (see section 4) and nature of the poll: information gathering or decision making.
(b) Two types of poll organization are allowed: Yes/No polls and multiple choice polls.
(c) Yes/No polls must have three options of which only one can be chosen. The three options must be:
* Yes, meaning that the voter agrees with what was stated in the poll;
* No, meaning that the voter does not agree with what was stated in the poll;
* Abstain, meaning that the voter does not have a specific opinion on what was stated in the poll or does not wish to express it. Abstain votes may not be considered to say anything about what was stated in the poll.
(d) Alternative terms for 'Yes' and 'No' may be used in a Yes/No poll, as long as their meaning is along the same lines as 'Yes' and 'No' (examples: 'I agree'/'I don't agree' or 'In favour'/'Against'). Terms are along the same lines as 'Yes' and 'No' when the question in the poll can be rephrased so that it can be answered with 'Yes' or 'No'.
(e) Multiple choice polls must have at least three options of which only one can be chosen. Such polls must at least have an Abstain option as defined in section 3(c). All other options are open for the poll creator to fill in as he wishes, as long as they are clear and unbiased.

4. Poll Types:

There are 5 types of polls: Election polls, Official polls, Laws, Amendments and Unofficial polls.

I) Election polls:
(a) These polls must be started by the Court. They serve to elect the persons who will fulfill the official positions of the executive and judicial branches of the government, as defined in Article I and Article II of this Constitution.
(b) The subject line must contain the word 'ELECTION', written in capital letters, and the name of the office for which the election is held.
(c) They have to be multiple choice polls with only the names of the candidates as options. They can only be decision-making polls, they cannot be used for not information gathering.
(e) They must follow the rules as defined in Article V of this Constitution.

II. Official polls:
(a) These polls must be started by members of the executive branch of the government, as defined in Article I of this Constitution, and relate to the game.
(b) The subject line must contain the word 'OFFICIAL', written in capital letters.
(c) They can be either Yes/No or multiple choice polls and can be used for either information gathering or decision making.
(d) The government official who started the poll may or may not follow the opinion of the majority of the voters. In case (s)he does not follow what was decided, (s)he must make this decision public. Failure to do so will be regarded withholding of information, as defined in Article IV section 7, and can serve as grounds for Impeachment (see Article VI).

III. Laws:
(a) These polls can be started by any Citizen, including members of the governement, and must be used to propose Laws. Laws, if passed, modify the rules that clearly affect the course of the game or the policy of the executive branch of the government government (as defined in Article I of this Constitution).
(b) The subject line must contain the word 'LAW', written in capital letters.
(c) They have to be Yes/No polls. Multiple choice polls are not allowed as Laws.
(d) Laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Laws may change, amend or remove any existing Laws or judicial decisions regarding Laws.
(e) Every vote in this type of poll has to be confirmed by a post in the thread in which the voter may or may not tell what (s)he has voted. If the poll has unconfirmed votes, the person who proposed the Law must file the poll for review by the Court.
(f) If more than 1/2 of the voters votes in favour of the Law, at least 1/2 of all Citizens vote in the poll and the Court does not declare the poll invalid, the Law is considered passed. All Citizens must from that time on obey it.
(g) A record must be kept of all Laws that are passed, amended, or removed. The person who proposed a Law that has been passed must add this Law to the record as soon as possible.
(h) The Court will resolve all conflicts of Laws. The Court’s ruling on an interpretation of a Law is of the same power and authority as that Law.

IV. Amendments:
(a) These polls can be started by any Citizen, including members of the governement, and must be used to propose Amendments to this Constitution.
(b) The subject line must contain the word 'AMENDMENT', written in capital letters.
(c) They have to be Yes/No polls. Multiple choice polls are not allowed as Ammendments.
(d) Amendments may override any existing Laws, judicial decisions regarding Laws or any number of existing sections of the Constitution.
(e) Every vote in this type of poll has to be confirmed by a post in the thread in which the voter may or may not tell what (s)he has voted. If the poll has unconfirmed votes, the person who proposed the Ammendment must file the poll for review by the Court.
(f) If more than 2/3 of the voters votes in favour of the Law, at least 1/2 of all Citizens vote in the poll and the Court does not declare the poll invalid, the Ammendent is considered passed. All Citizens must from that time on obey it.
(g) Amendments of the Constitution must be recorded by the Court. The person who proposed an Amendment that has been passed must inform the Court of this as soon as possible.

V. Unofficial polls:
(a) These polls can be started by any Citizen, including members of the government.
(b) They may only exist to debate or gather information. Their outcome should not affect the course of the game or the policy of the government.
(c) Unofficial polls are the only polls in which more than one option may be chosen from the list of options.
(d) They do not have to follow all the rules specified in this Article. However, rules specified in Article IV of this Constitution must still be obeyed.



BTW. Nothing is official yet, but they way I see it, the contents of the Constitution will be the following:

Article I: Execute Branch: Ministers and President
Article II: Judicial Branch: The Court
Article III: Polling
Article IV: Bill of Rights
Article V: Elections
Article VI: Impeachment

Finally, I think the length that different types of polls should remain open (minimum and maximum) *should* be specified in the constitution but we need to discuss this first. This just means that an extra section needs to be added to each of the 4 types of non-Unofficilal polls...

[Locutus]

Re: Bill of Rights, I can think of certain situations in which they can be violated or at least where the Court may need them to justify their rulings. I would actually want to expand on (changes indicated in bold):



Article: Bill of Rights

1. Any person who has registered to participate in this Democracy Game in the Citizen Registry is considered a Citizen. No person shall be denied the right to become a Citizen.
2. No Citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll.
3. A Citizen’s vote in a poll is to remain private. No one, including members of the Court or individuals with admin powers, shall reveal the way a Citizen voted.
4. Free speech shall not be abridged unless it violates Apolyton rules.
5. No one shall be banned permanently from participating in the Democracy Game, excluding those who are permanently banned from Apolyton. Note that people may still be banned for any amount of time, as long as it is not permanent.
6. The right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied.
7. No citizen may be punished in any way without the consent of the Court.
8. The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people.
9. All Citizens shall have access to the saved games. However, no Citizen shall 'play ahead' or make any irreversible changes to any of the saved games.
10. The rules and regulations of Apolyton apply to this Democracy Game and take precedence over all rules of this game.

[Locutus]

For those who can't be arsed with reading my entire article proposal at this time, here's a summary:

"Polls are a forum feature which can be used for Citizens to express their opinion. If needed, the Court can run polls through Private Messages. All Citizens can vote in polls, votes by non-Citizens don't count. The Court may declare polls invalid if it suspects non-Citizens voted. Polls must indicate what they are about, expiration date, links to relevant info and of what type and nature they are. They can be either yes/no polls or multiple choice. In both cases, there must be an Abstain option. There are 5 types of polls:

* Election polls, to elect government officials.
* Official polls, started by government officials to gauge the opinion of the people.
* Laws, to define how the government officials should play the game.
* Amendments, to change the Constitution.
* Unofficial poll, to gather information or for any other purpose. Don't affect the game in any way.

If government officials choose to ignore the outcome of Official polls, they must make this public. In order for votes for Laws and Amendments to be valid, they must be confirmed by posting in the thread (what was voted for can be omitted)."

[Pedrunn]

Locutus Bill of rights comments:

Your Bill of Rights is a improvement over the ACDG one. Still i want to point some stuff.

--> Section 4 = section 10

--> Section 3: I dont think the court should have the right o obligate the knoledge of the vote of a citzen if requested. Although they could ask for it.

--> Section 9 will be impossible to fiscalize. But the citzes must have the saved games. the line "or make any irreversible changes to any of the saved games" is impossible to do unless if hacking the president PC to get the official saved game.

My changes. In other to make simple and more organized (one subject = one clause) Bill of Rights. I decreased the number of section without loosing the content.

The scheme based on Locutus Bill of Right.
1. - citzenship - 1
2. - vote - 2 + 3
3. - freedom - 4 + 6 (+ 10)
4. - punishment - 5 + 7
5. - truth access - 8 + 9


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article: Bill of Rights

1. Any person who has registered to participate in this Democracy Game in the Citizen Registry is considered a Citizen. No person shall be denied the right to become a Citizen.

2. No Citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll and to keep this vote private.

3. Freedom of speech and the right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied unless it violates Apolyton rules.

4. No citizen may be punished in any way without the consent of the Court. Still no one shall be banned permanently from participating in the Democracy Game, excluding those who are permanently banned from Apolyton. Note that people may still be banned for any amount of time, as long as it is not permanent.

5. The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people. Therefore all citizens shall have access to the saved games. However, no Citizen shall ever 'play ahead'.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


PS: Shoudnt we move the Bill of Rights discussion to a new thread? Maybe cut this thread in half would do the trick.
PS2: I will post my comments in the polling article changes once i go deep into later. It looks amazing from what i have seen in my first reading.

[Pedrunn]

Comments to the Article: Polling.
1)

(c) Non-Citizens are not allowed to vote in any poll except Unofficial ones.
(d) When it is known that non-Citizens have voted in a poll and it is also known what they have voted, this poll is valid if the votes by non-Citizens are removed from the final result.
(e) When the things in 2(d) are not known but there is a reasonable suspicion that non-Citizens have voted in a poll, the Court may declare this poll invalid.

When I wrote that in Amendments and laws (lawsuit actually) must have a validation post from the voters was to prevent votes from non-citizen were valid since those are too delicate issues that change all the game course.
But a similar procedure for the Official polls and ellection was not implemented. Why? Because many voters dont want to bother to write posts. So how can we control the non-citzens? Unfortunetly we cant . Thats why i dont think we should make a brazilian-like constitution wich many laws exist but arent in use. therefore comes the phrase: "It is forbidden but you can". So i am in favor of a tolerance for the votes of non-citizens for the ellection and official poll.
Dont see much choice here. We just have to have this tolerance.

2)
Semanthics: Law are the best name for the poll type number III?
Laws are something static, something that is to be written in a constitution.
When this poll type should be an intervention from the citizens in the government. Something circustancial, temporary. Wich i dont think the name Law gives a picture of it.
I dont know if "lawsuit" is the best name for it too. but i really dont think "Law" is. Anyone has a suggestion or comment? after all i am brazilian and my english is limited.

I guess those two small things are all i have found. The rest is terrific

BTW:

Article VI: Impeachment

Do we really need a whole article for this?
We can just consider the Impeachment process an Law (or whatever we call) poll. After all these types of poll exist for this mean. Give the citzen the power to do whatever they want if most of the community wants too.

[Locutus]

Re: 1)

You don't have to explain tolerance to me: I'm Dutch, we invented tolerance

But yes, you can't stop non-Citizens from voting unless you do everything by PM or posting. The problems with that are (1) that it's less anonymous and with that less democratic (peer pressure can force you to vote a certain way if voting is not anonymous) and (2) that it will mean people have to do more to vote and this will discourage people from voting.
And if you consider that the only difference between Citizens and non-Citizens is a single post in the Citizen Registry (and noone can prevent someone from becoming a Citizen), it's really rather silly to resist non-Citizen voting. I think the legal framework for doing so should be there (so that we can stop if it's needed), but under normal circumstances I see no need to use it much. Your 'confirmed voting' system is IMHO already taking it a bit far, but I'll go along with it if others will.


Re: 2)

Laws are indeed a correct term for it, I can name dozens of Dutch laws which are very 'ad-hoc' and only apply to specific situations, this is actually quite normal, at least here in the Netherlands. But I know what you mean, and that's why I suggested the alternative 'Resolution'. As far as I, as a judicial layman, can tell it's pretty much the same thing as a Law but it sounds less 'static'. (Think RL UN Resolutions: some are simply condemnations of Israeli/Palestinian attacks, others lay down fundamental principles of UN policy (e.g. the resolution on how to deal with "Children and armed conflict").)

I guess those two small things are all i have found. The rest is terrific

That's good to hear


Re: Impeachment.

Impeachment is serious thing, and although I doubt will need it often (if ever), it shouldn't be dealt with lightly. I think that impeachment should only be possible after review by the Court, so we may need to lay down some groundrules for that. How big a majority is needed to impeach someone? That needs to be established. Also, what happens after someone is impeached? Who replaces him? The President? The Court? The people, through elections? Of course, elections are inevitable, but should they take place as soon as someone is impeached or should a temp replace the impeached official until the next elections? If elections are held immediately, they will take a few days. Who will do the job in the meantime? Etc, etc, there's a bunch of things that need to be established in advance, just like with elections. It doesn't have to be 3 pages of legal text, but a proper procedure needs to be there when (if?) we need it, IMHO.
For now I'm assuming we'll have a seperate Constitution article on that but if it turns out to be very short, we can also place it under the article that deals with the Court, the Ministers or some other one...

[Locutus]

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Your Bill of Rights is a improvement over the ACDG one. Still i want to point some stuff.

Excellent stuff I agree with your new proposal, it much simpler yet still contains the same rights. However, I do have the followinging comments:

Section 9 will be impossible to fiscalize.

1) Fiscalize? Is that even a word? It's not in my dictionary.... (Webster)
So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

the line "or make any irreversible changes to any of the saved games" is impossible to do unless if hacking the president PC to get the official saved game.

2) An example of making irreversible changes it to switch government (so effectively to switch to Anarchy): you don't play ahead (as you don't end the turn), but you do change the game irreversibly, as you can't cancel a revolution once it's started. Same with diplomacy: diplomatic agreements change the AI state without requiring you to end the turn. People might do this to see how it affects the game and use this knowledge to vote a certain way in polls. This should not be allowed.
Other things, like adding specialists or changing war state, are reversible within the same gameturn without having an affect on the gamestate. IMHO this should be (and in other DGs is) allowed, so you don't have to rely entirely on textfiles and reference charts and stuff when determining what to vote for...

3) I would like to rephrase your section 3 to make it clearer and less ambiguous gramatically (and with that senmantically as well), to prevent problems with legal interpretation (however unlikely).

So I endorse your proposal but with the following changes (section 3 and the last sentence of section 5 are different):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Article: Bill of Rights

1. Any person who has registered to participate in this Democracy Game in the Citizen Registry is considered a Citizen. No person shall be denied the right to become a Citizen.

2. No Citizen shall ever be denied the right to vote in any poll and to keep this vote private.

3. As long as the rules of Apolyton are not violated, freedom of speech and the right to associate into any form of organization shall not be denied.

4. No Citizen may be punished in any way without the consent of the Court. Still no one shall be banned permanently from participating in the Democracy Game, excluding those who are permanently banned from Apolyton. Note that people may still be banned for any amount of time, as long as it is not permanent.

5. The government may not knowingly hide information or give false information to the people. Therefore all Citizens shall have access to the saved games. However, no Citizen shall ever 'play ahead' or make irreversible changes to any of the saved games.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Shoudnt we move the Bill of Rights discussion to a new thread? Maybe cut this thread in half would do the trick.

Strictly speaking that might be a good idea but so far there's only 3 posts or so on the topic and the BoR and Polling discussions are partly mangled up within posts, so not a terribly good idea to split the thread. But it's not a big subject anyway, only 5-10 lines of text (Although I always hope many people will give feedback, I wouldn't be surprised if after this post only 2 or 3 more posts were made on the subject). As long as it's manageable, we can keep it here, IMHO.

[F-PRO]

Originally posted by Locutus
2) An example of making irreversible changes it to switch government (so effectively to switch to Anarchy): you don't play ahead (as you don't end the turn), but you do change the game irreversibly, as you can't cancel a revolution once it's started. Same with diplomacy: diplomatic agreements change the AI state without requiring you to end the turn. People might do this to see how it affects the game and use this knowledge to vote a certain way in polls. This should not be allowed.
Other things, like adding specialists or changing war state, are reversible within the same gameturn without having an affect on the gamestate. IMHO this should be (and in other DGs is) allowed, so you don't have to rely entirely on textfiles and reference charts and stuff when determining what to vote for...

I think Pedrunn believes that the rule has been made to prevent people from making changes to the game which we don't want, i.e. ruining the game we all play.
But the rule has been created (correct me if I'm wrong) so that people don't make some decisions in the game and see how it works out. In that way they know what's the right course of action (or the wrong) and it's basically cheating.

[Pedrunn]

On Polls:
1) We could have those rules at least to have something to deal with this situation. Still I think we will never use them although it may happen often. My confirmed voting system is just to make those types of polls more serious and not light as you stated in the impeachment comment. Of course many people may not like this so there is the possibility to change that. Maybe a poll on this issue would be nice.

2) "Resolution" looks better. But "law" could be used without any problemand it is a short word what is nice.
As i said it is just semanthics.

Impeachment-> The impeachement of a person leaves two questions only.
-- How to decide if a person should be impeached? As you know i suggest through Law ( or resolution) poll. If half of the citzen agree and the court declare the poll valid (the court should alway declare the vality of the first 3 types of poll) he is out.
-- Who will replaced the impeached person? I sugest the supreme Senior or the playing of the game is stopped. Of course until new ellection have been held.

Anyway, we should save this discussion to another thread

On Bill of Rights.

1) Sorry, it exist a similar word in portuguese. So i thought it exist in english (you'd be amazed on how much words look like). Looks like it doesnt. What I meant by fiscalize was "To Control", to "Supervise". Not that it will change much after all.
Sorry anyway

2) I misunderstood you. You are right we must have such line. F-PRO statement about my mistakly thought is correct.

3) I noticed the abiguity you meant. Looks better now.

PS: Shoudnt we move the Bill of Rights discussion to a new thread? Maybe cut this thread in half would do the trick.

Never mind is too late now.



I guess we are praticly done with the Poll and Bill of Rights articles then.

[Turambar]

Great work on this everyone! Is it ready to be published/polled yet?

[RunsWithDwarf]

Re; Impeachment
Locutus unless there are objections I would reccomend
handling Impeachment the way we do here in the U.S.
as far as who serves as leader in the interim until new
elections are held. The responibility usually falls on the
Vice-President, or in the case that he is also implicated
in whatever circumstances that lead to the impeachment
of the President, then it falls on the shoulders of the
Secretary of Defense, and after him the Secretary of State etc, etc. which by the way are all cabinet appointed positions hand picked by the President, none
of them with the exception of the Vice-President are duly elected officials although most all of them have served in government positions in one branch
or another for some considerable length of time whether
it be in an official capacity or simply as advisors with some expertise in one area or another. Or finally in the
highly unlikely case that all the Presidents cabinet are
implicated or mysteriously killed in some freak accident,
terrorist act, coup attempt (and there have been a few in our sordid history, some successful, and from within
the Presidents own cabinet), or war, the responsibility
then falls on the chairman of the House Senate who is
an elected official but is nominated for this position from
within congress and from within thier own ranks.
Obviously this system is not perfect and would most likely require some considerable fine tuning as far as
using it for gaming purposes, especially considering that
it sounds like all the positions in this Democracy government will be duly elected positions instead of
government appointed positions, but it does have it's
merits, and would promote smooth flow of government
during the transition of power, instead of the chaos that
comes with putting a halt to everything while a new
Presidential election takes place.

[RunsWithDwarf]

One more thing, the reason I mentioned the case of the
the Presidents whole cabinet being killed is because I'm
not quite sure if its been decided what module will be used and irregardless of which is used, If we survive as
a nation to reach a modern age we then have to contend with the chance that a rival nation that is not in
agreement of our foriegn policies will make an assassination attempt upon our glorious leader and/or
other duly elected officials.
Although I'm not quite sure what the assassination attack does per-say as I've never attempted to use it
myself, I would assume it has nothing to do with a
sniper in the wood taking potshots at innocent citizens,
as that would be very incondusive to bringing about
national reform or change in government or its policies.
Otherwise, if this does not sound feasible then I guess
the issue of what to do in said circumstances would be
left up to debate, or perhaps another poll.
"Ahh! the wheels of Government, much like the wheels
of Justice turns, Oh So Slow"

[Pedrunn]

The responibility usually falls on the
Vice-President, or in the case that he is also implicated
in whatever circumstances that lead to the impeachment
of the President, then it falls on the shoulders of the
Secretary of Defense, and after him the Secretary of State etc, etc. which by the way are all cabinet appointed positions hand picked by the President, none

Comes the problem. We cant afford too many government positions because there are too few citzen. And all Covernment position are elected by the people and not chose by the president. So do we need to have a second person to all governmant positions.

the responsibility
then falls on the chairman of the House Senate who is
an elected official but is nominated for this position from
within congress and from within thier own ranks.

We cant have a congress. The democracy game community is too small. It has only 31 citzens now we could only pick someone from it. But this would be unfair for the other people who also want to be part of the gov

Or finally in the
highly unlikely case that all the Presidents cabinet are
implicated or mysteriously killed in some freak accident,
terrorist act, coup attempt

Lets kill them all. ANARCHY!!!
(*I guess i better give up *)
If they are all (or a good part) killed, resigned or impeached we must freeze the game and have the ellections. Thats my opinion.

Locutus, I have been considering not to have the confirmed posts system. I want it to be more effective therefore giving more power to the citzens. As you noticed i belive the more the power and the choices of our empire is defined by the citzens the better. What is you opinion about it. Do you think it will be better without it? Can the Laws (resolutions) have the same power without this idea?

[Locutus]

In the light of the new Civgroups feature (I knew it was coming but I didn't know it would be this fast and this powerful ), I suggest that rules 1(b), 4-III(e) and 4-IV(e) (regarding PM and confirmed polling) are removed, as it will soon be impossible for non-Citizens to vote in any polls. Pedrunn and others, do you agree?

Regarding Impeachment, I think I'd rather wait until we know exactly what government positions will exist and what powers they will have before going into that in too much detail. The fact that we don't know if we will even have a Vice-President or a Secretary of State or whatever, makes it kind of hard to decide on who should replace impeached officials...

As far as Assassinations go, according to the GL they mean that an important official in a specific city is assassinated, so a local politician as opposed to a national one. Either way, I don't think that in-game assassinations should affect the forum government (not in the last place because I've never seen the AI actually use this feature).

[Pedrunn]

Pedrunn and others, do you agree?

I had already agreed at the moment i saw the annoucement.
It will solve most of my fears!
thanks apolyton

Either way, I don't think that in-game assassinations should affect the forum government (not in the last place because I've never seen the AI actually use this feature).

I was just kidding. Kill leaders should not happen ever.
And i think RunsWithDwarf was just giving an example, wasnt him?
But giving a second thought would be fun to have this feature. We could talk about it later. And even have a votation about it for sure.

makes it kind of hard to decide on who should replace impeached officials...

I will start a thread about impeachment today at night or tomorrow about this if anyone does it first.

(g) A record must be kept of all Laws that are passed, amended, or removed. The person who proposed a Law that has been passed must add this Law to the record as soon as possible.

What should the record be for? Just to keep track and a history, right ?
I thought the effects of the resolutions (laws) polls were immediate and of single use.

eg. impeachment, punish a certain citizen, must attack a city, attack that army, send a proposal to that civ, change gov, change military stage, disband a certain city, etc...

You see what kind of power i want to give the citzens over the governments with those polls?!?
The ones that was going to be used in many ocasion therefore became rule were the amendments wich had to be written in the constitution.
Are we having different ideas for tthe resolution (law) type of polls?

[RunsWithDwarf]

Yes Pedrunn, Thank You! I was just giving an example.
I understand there aren't enough players per-say to have a congress, I was attempting to explain how our system works in the event of an Impeachment or Assassination, not neccessarily to endorse it, but the basic principle of the system is still feasible no matter how many government officials you have. We don't want to have a situation like the one in Israel they've had 7 Prime Ministers in nearly as many years and may be holding elections again within 90 days.

[RunsWithDwarf]

Yes Pedrunn, Thank You! I was just giving an example.
I understand there aren't enough players per-say to have a congress, I was attempting to explain how our system works in the event of an Impeachment or Assassination, not neccessarily to endorse it, but the basic principle of the system is still feasible no matter how many government officials you have. We don't want to have a situation like the one in Israel they've had 7 Prime Ministers in nearly as many years and may be holding elections again within 90 days.
Also, I'm not quite sure I would want to put every issue before a citizens committee before it's acted upon, I think if you trusted the indivdual enough to represent you and your best interest to elect them to office, then some small amount of leeway to act on your behalh would be in order, otherwise you may as well give them the title of Errand Boy

[Pedrunn]

Hey, RunsWithDwarf (funny name by the way) check out what i have written for the impeachment/ assassination stuff in the Article: Government Changes thread.
I am eagerly waiting your comments.

Also, I'm not quite sure I would want to put every issue before a citizens committee before it's acted upon, I think if you trusted the indivdual enough to represent you and your best interest to elect them to office, then some small amount of leeway to act on your behalh would be in order, otherwise you may as well give them the title of Errand Boy

It is not that every act should pass the citizens opinion. But the citizens that can change every act of the governors.
Since the lawsuit is started by any citizen only and whenever a citizen think something has to be done diferently.
I hope you got what i mean.

[RunsWithDwarf]

Yes Pedrunn, I think I understand quite cleary what your saying, but I also see where this type of citizenry power could under certain circumstances tie up the courts in legal litigation for an undetermined length of valuable time, eg; if you have 5 or more citizens, and each one of them has a different opinion on what's to be done and they all decide to file suit. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Perhaps it would be better to have a poll in this situation, and go with the majority vote.