Part Deux: Constitution?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Options:

Keep the current Constitution: NewCon
Write a new detailed constitution (as detailed as current constitution, but 'fixing' things)
Write a new basic constitution (give some details as to what Govt officials cannot do, set up court)
Only outline Govt positions, elections, and polls (No court, impeachments and conflicts handled strictly by a public poll)
No Constitution (Anarchy!!!)
Banana

[UnOrthOdOx]

My personal opinion is if you want a detailed constitution, keep the current one. We can fix it with Bills if need be.

I, however, lean towards only an outline.

[Aidun]

Ow I just saw I voted wrong, please consider my vote as +1 for the New detailed constitution and -1 for the New basic Constitution.

Please think about the folowing things:

• Do we want to lay power in hands of a President or Prime Minister or Chancellor or perhaps even a King?
• Do we want a republic + parliamentiary democracy (USA, Germany, France, Brazil) or a constitutional monarchy + parliamentary democracy (England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden)
• What powers do we want to give to the head of state (President or King)?
• (eventual) what powers do we want to give to the Prime Minister or Chancellor
• What powers do we want to give to the court?
• Do we want an impeachment procedure = court procedure, or no-confidence vote = parliamentary procedure.
• Do we prefer that all members of the game form the parliament or rather a select groop that is chosen by the members of the game? (Direct or indirect democracy)
• Do we want to choose every minister seperalely or let the Prime Minister/Chancellor/President or even King appoint ministers for the cabinet?

It's all not so self-evident as you think.

Aidun

[Sheik]

Anarchy, seriously

[UnOrthOdOx]

IMO a simple outline allows for greater flexibility. It does not tell the ministers how to manage their deputies/assistants. It only states how the govt is to be comprised and when the elections are held.

It would be designed to change govt makeup on the fly with a simple poll, to remove an official with a poll, and could even force officials to follow polls. This will allow for multiple forms of govt, perhaps even RP the govt according to the game. Change on the fly with few as possible restrictions.

[MrWhereItsAt]

At present we have 33 members, a lot fewer than the anarchic times of the first game. We know what works, and what needs to be controlled. From what I have seen, the only things we need to have in a "Constitution" are;

1. Standard format for polls (eg no opinions first post, abstain etc options, standard length of time)

2. Outlining the responsibilities of the Government officials. IMO they should be allowed to deputise in case of RL unavailability, and an emphasis placed on working with other Ministers where their areas of interest collide.

3. Several Judges to rule on any disputes. They will do this in relation to trying to progress the game as much as possible whilst following orders and majority opinions of the people.


I would like to see more a page of broad agreements that we reach amongst ourselves, which are open to debate, than any strict rules. We had few impeachments last game, but many situations that could have ended with them. Fortunately the Judges were reasonable and aimed to keep the game moving rather than enforce our laws strictly. I would like to see the practical reality reflected in the document to be enforced in theory.

I guess this means I would like to see a Basic outline, but a Court established to judge in case of disputes, so I will vote for the basic Consitution idea.

[Aidun]

But do you agree with me that a little bit of creativity doesn't harm the game?

Lets for instance have a King who monthly or once in two or three months appoints his decendant who becomes king. So a 1, 2 or three monthly cycle.

The Prime Minister is being elected and holds a power that is similar to that of a President. The rest of the cabinet is elected too.

The King appoints Judges (King is independant and can appoint Judges without any political preferrence).

The King finally installs the cabinet after the parliament has approved it.

The King cannot be impeached, but urged to abdicate from the throne with a threat of revolt.

What would you think of this? little rules, works easy, with a nice part of RP for the RP-ers and 100% democratic, with an objective, independent Justice

Aidun

[E_T]

The New Con did fix a lot of things, but it also created some new problems. If we go a route where we want a newer constitution, we should look at some of the good and bad things for what to keep and what to throw away.

I'm not going to vote yet, I want to see what other have to say about this before I vote.

E_T

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Aidun
But do you agree with me that a little bit of creativity doesn't harm the game?

Lets for instance have a King who monthly or once in two or three months appoints his decendant who becomes king. So a 1, 2 or three monthly cycle.

The Prime Minister is being elected and holds a power that is similar to that of a President. The rest of the cabinet is elected too.

The King appoints judges (King is independant and can appoint Judjes without any political preferrence).

The King finally installs the cabinet after the parliament has approved it.

The King cannot be impeached, but urged to abdicate from the throne with a threat of revolt.

What would you think of this? little rules, works easy, with a nice part of RP for the RP-ers and 100% democratic, with an objective, independent Justice

Aidun

Who is playing the game?

If you go with kings, we should try for something similar to the GoW idea that we had in the beginning.

King plays the game. Each citizen (likely a group of 4-5 for this at least in the beginning) gets a city, builds and controls the units from that city unless the king needs them for matters of the state. Virtual wars can even be played out with the different factions/regents.

If one of the Regents gains enough support (lots of ways to influence this) he can attempt to overthrow the King.

However, this is all beyond the point of this poll.

Do you need a highly structured document defining each and every process in full detail?

Or is it just easy to say IN GAME we hold elections the 15th of each month for 5 days.

There is a Pres/equivalent to play the game

A vice to back him up

a general in charge of the military

a diplomat in charge of Foreign Relations

One or more positions in charge of Cities, settlers and workers.

These guys can choose to have assistants as they see fit.

There is a court for disputes

We choose judges in X fashion

Great Leaders must be voted on before used

War must be voted on before declared

Peace must be voted on before declared

Any poll passed by more than 50% of the Public must be followed by the officials.

have fun.


Roleplaying will not be included in the Constitution because it should be optional, therefore made into a seperate document.

[Kloreep]

I feel we need at least some basic standards (elections, the court, official polls, and some rules relating to the game with GLs and such). So we need some basic document. Reading the first post, it looks like that would fall under "detailed" in this case, so that's what I vote for.

[GodKing]

the existing con is good, and well known, so I say stick with it.

[Aidun]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Who is playing the game?

If you go with kings, we should try for something similar to the GoW idea that we had in the beginning.

King plays the game. Each citizen (likely a group of 4-5 for this at least in the beginning) gets a city, builds and controls the units from that city unless the king needs them for matters of the state. Virtual wars can even be played out with the different factions/regents.

If one of the Regents gains enough support (lots of ways to influence this) he can attempt to overthrow the King.

I don't think it would be effective to let groops of people govern the cities. This is but the general idea of the Citystates Game: little groops of people wo govern 1 to 3 cities.
In this game I'm in favor for a central led country, if you want to go federal, sign up for the Citystates Game.

We needn't to let the King play the game, it can also be done by the Prime Minister. It deopends on how many power the citizens want to lay in the hands of the King.
Of couse this also counts for a republic: how many power do the citizens want to lay in the hands of a President? The power of the President can be limited by having a Prime Minister or a Chancellor. ( there is but very little difference between the PM and the Chancellor)

However, this is all beyond the point of this poll.

I don't agree with that: if we want change something, that has to be doen now and not when the game has already started. These questions, thoughts are relevant for the option you choose in the poll.

Roleplaying will not be included in the Constitution because it should be optional, therefore made into a seperate document.

The roleplay is inherent to the King: if we chhose to have a King as Head of State in this game, that will alsmost automatically mean some roleplay, it is however up to the idividual member to join in that roleplay or be solely involved with playing the game: the technical part.

Aidun

[mjmacy]

How do I join the team?

[Aro]

Originally posted by mjmacy
How do I join the team?

Here.

[Aidun]

Mjmacy,

Welcome! You can join by signing up here for Single Player DemoGame nr. 2 and here for the Citystates Game.

Aidun

[MrWhereItsAt]

As far as Government structure goes, I'd like to see basically the same as the first game - a City Planner position, a Public Works Officer, a Supreme Military Commander, a Foreign Affairs Minister, a President and a Vice President. Minister of Science can be subsumed within one of these positions as all they do is poll on he next tech. We may need to switch to regional governors after a time and if there is the interest, but at the start the job is easy enough for one to do.

Thoughts?

[Aidun]

I agree on the part of Cityplanner, PW officer, SMC and FAM, but I would like to see what the members think of this. Agree: RG's are noy yet needed and the science minister or minister of eceonomy can be deputy ministers.

Check the Government structure poll

[Kloreep]

City planner and PW should be combined at first, IMO; the first worker's moves are a vital and intertwined part of production at the start of a game, and having to coordinate that between two people instead of having one DM do it would be too difficult and... bureacratic! (Now that should set most people against it. )

The positions can either be split apart later in the game, or we can leave it to the DM to find a PW minister if he/she desires. Either way should work.

[Aidun]

Originally posted by Kloreep
(Now that should set most people against it. )

Indeed it does

You have a point

Aidun

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Kloreep
City planner and PW should be combined at first, IMO; the first worker's moves are a vital and intertwined part of production at the start of a game, and having to coordinate that between two people instead of having one DM do it would be too difficult and... bureacratic! (Now that should set most people against it. )

Oh, you don't miss the arguments between CP and PW about which should get upgrades first and where?!?

[GodKing]

What arguements - we generally just ignored each other and then every 4 or 5 turns I ordered teh cities work force adjusted to account for the changes that took place...... oh how I miss those good ol' days.

[Thud]

Originally posted by Aidun
Mjmacy,

Welcome! You can join by signing up here for Single Player DemoGame nr. 2 and here for the Citystates Game.

Aidun

Also, I suggest that you consider joining a political party. In particular, I recommend the DIA, of which I am a mem--- doh!

New, basic Constitution.

[Octavian X]

A word from an outsider...

Previous experience with a new democracy game has shown us that 'If it works, don't fix it.' By the end of our demogame I, we had a detailed and complex system of laws that worked almost flawlessly. When we started demogame II, we kept the system, mainly to save us days of debate on a NEW constitution.

I'm sure you remember when your current ruleset was put in place to replace your old Code of Laws. Why needlessly cause more debate for a new system?

[Aro]

It's a good advice, OctavianX.

[Aidun]

Even in the NewCon, there were some things that malfunctioned. Aggie knows that very well: his bill to forbid abolition of slavery passed with a majority, but then suddenly the government VETOED. I was relieved, because I opposed this bill, but at the other hand, I knew there was something wrong: the bill was, according to the NewCon 100% LEGAL.
With what right did the government veto the bill then?
With the right to veto as stated in the New Con, also 100% legalaccording to the New Con.
If we should look critically, at the former DemoGame we were not a Democracy, but a Constitutional MONARCHY, ask Arnelos if you think I'm wrong.
This is but one of the little erriors in the NewCon.
We can cpoy much, but it's never wrong to take a new look at it.

Aidun

[MrWhereItsAt]

Certainly wise words, Octavian. Everyone is aware of my dissatisfaction with the NewCon and the restrictions it places upon those who actually want to keep the game going. Our NewCon does deal with almost all the issues we could face, but IMO in a little TOO much detail. Hopefully we will be able to pare it down somewhat, whilst keeping those necessary sections that have been honed to perfection.

[Beta]

I vote for a new detailed constitution. My rationale for such is in the pre-poll discussion thread.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hm. Well it's certainly clear that a majority want some kind of guiding document for our game conduct. I guess I can detop this now, and we continue the discussion on exactly what to include in this document elsewhere...

[Panag]

hi ,

we should constantly improve what ever shortcomings we might find in the CON , .....

have a nice day