Pre-poll discussion: Design the New Constitution.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Please submit all ideas for a new constitution, perhaps even a rough draft here, please, and discuss.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Things to think on:

Elections: What do you want elected, do you want the appoint/confirm as we had with the VP last time?

There are pro's and con's to that.

Court, how to choose Judges, how long is a Judge's term?

Polling standard: How long must Polls/bills/whatever be open to be official? Do they need a specific structure? (abstain, etc) What does abstain mean?

How Many Ministers we want?

Most voted for writting a new Constitution, let's hear it! What needed changing from the current one?

[GodKing]

I will look at revising the con from last time and posting it this weekend. Personally, I thought it worked rather well except in two areas.

DM responsibilities - these were just to much and too big. I will look at ways to split this.

VP - I like the person being elected seperately. Also, I would ask if they can also get the SpElzE power from the gOds.

[Aidun]

About the seperation of powers from Montesquieu.

Judges should be appointed and not elected: the justicial power, one of the three powers in a state should be independent from the legislative power and the executive power. The legislative power, we all, elected judges in C3DG nr.1.

The executive power should not have the right to veto any amendment or bill approved by the legislative power.

The executive power should be allowed to propose bills themselves without having to seek a senator that is willing to post a bill.

Aidun

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Aidun
About the seperation of powers from Montesquieu.

Judges should be appointed and not chosen

You mean elected ?

[Aidun]

Sorry for the bad english, I'll, change it immediately

Aidun

[civman2000]

My constitution proposal is here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=72122

Perhaps we could make a few changes, but it seem pretty much OK IMHO.

[Kloreep]

I agree we should use the NewCon as a base, but there are many things that need to be added or removed:

- Everyone, regardless of government position, can propose bills.
- Allow several bills to be voted on in one poll.
- Have the Prez choose two candidates for VP, to be chosen between in a vote (Prez still approves of whoever his VP is, but the people have more choice without having to vote someone down)

I'm not sure I agree with Aidun about electing judges (what would they campaign on?), but I agree veto should be removed. Let the people do as they want (see my sig ).

[Aidun]

Originally posted by Kloreep
I'm not sure I agree with Aidun about electing judges (what would they campaign on?)

I don't want the judges be elected and yes, there is nothing to campaign for.

Imagine: Unortho is president, I'm elected as judge because I'm member of the DIA and the DIA has a majority in the Senate. The DIA is not in the cabinet and is effectively trying to oppose this cabinet. During a turnchat something happens and it is UNCLEAR whether the president should be impeached for it or not. My DIA friends tell me to vote in the court for impeachement. The court agrees on impeachment and Unortho, a succesful president, is being impeached.

Why?

BECAUSE THE APOLYTONIAN JUSTICE IS NOT OBJECTIVE, UNORTHO GET'S NO FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THE SENATE ELECTS JUDGES.

THAT IS A RIDICULOUS SITUATION!

If the govenment would have appointed the judges, Unortho would have had a fairer trial: the paries in the government change every month and judges serve more than a month: the composition of the court represents all parties no matter of their power in the Senate. If we appoint judges, we can hold FAIR trials.

Aidun

[Kloreep]

Should have read your post more closely. So if I understand correctly, you mean there shouldn't be an approval vote? The Prez just appoints judge(s) upon election and that's that? Or something different?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Reguarding the DM position:

I would like to add a part allowing any DM to alter the save specifically, and only for setting up ques and moving workers around the city grid, PERHAPS even issuing worker orders, but that is debatable, then reposting the save before a turnchat.

From what amounted to really the final full chat, I spent more than half of that time issuing all those before the first turn. This would let the DM do these things at his discression, allow the Pres/VP to entertain the turnchat attendies with some more 'fun' aspects (though the DM aspects are perhaps the most VITAL), and hopefully make turnchats shorter.

All things that could use work on IMO.

[Aidun]

Concerning the judges, let us use this procedure:

The court creates an nomination thread. The nomination will be closed after three days, then the President chooses one from the list and appoints this person to judge.

Another option is that the members of the cabinet and the president vote on the candidates, the candidate that gets most of the votes us appointed.

Because the government is in most cases quite diverse, no political ideology can infect the justicial power through it.

In both cases, the court must be given the right to veto the approval to keep it's independence from the executive power. This is because there is also a second scenario: the govenment approves judges that are friendly towards them and not objective anymore, thus making the judicial power lame. This will alos cause unfair trials, etc.

Aidun

[Aidun]

I propose this stucture for the Domestc Ministry:

1 DM
2 Deputy Ministers for cityplanning and public works
3 Provincial Governors.

The DM can be given the power to execute the orders of his deputy ministers and should be given to power to veto them. This makes the task of the DM, which seems now to become heavier and heavier, easier.
The deputy ministers coordinate the orders of the PG's/RG's/RA's and present them to the DM.

The deputy ministers should be elected officials, so that they are responsible for their functioning and not the DM. The Senate should be given the right to impeach the deputy ministers if they do not comply to their task: they don't present their orders or too late. The DM should be held responsible for any DECISION that is made on cityplanning and public works.

Aidun

[Kuciwalker]

We need a Jester.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by skywalker
We need a Jester.

but you can only be elected twice in a row...

[Inverse Icarus]

alright, i've been looking over the NewCon, since i've been out of the loop for a while.

some general points i'd like to make:
1. Regions should not inly be avised, they should be required
2. I believe that every citizen should belong to a city (based on the population of said city). This would also mean the person belongs to a region. Each region should have 1 vote in major votes (how to use a leader, to declare war, etc). The regions could eb highly factionalized, whereas one region may have more warmongers than builders, and warmonger candidates would win more often. the build orders of that region would reflect more warlike tendencies.

:drool:

[Kuciwalker]

Can we have a military dictatorship?

[Octavian X]

I think I should be installed as supreme high dictator for life...

However, my view as an outsider suggests that the way Apolyton handles it's domestic affairs could be streamlined and more democratic.

A domestic minister, and mandatory and individually elected governors would work out excellently.

Give the domestic ministry powers those that deal with affairs of the entire state - city placement, national worker priorities, etc, and perhaps control over the region, or province, where the capital city is located. Perhaps give this office the power to define regional or provincial borders with Senate approval.

Governors, or regional administrators, or whatever you wish to call them - should be elected by the populace, rather than appointed to who would likely be a biased higher official. Give them powers that would deal with the internal affairs of a region: setting city build queues, assigning city citizens to work certain tiles, worker improvments for the terrain of their region.

[Kuciwalker]

I like uber's idea of having each person live in a certain region. Perhaps this could be tied into the minigame, as well?

[Aidun]

Originally posted by UberKruX
2. I believe that every citizen should belong to a city (based on the population of said city). This would also mean the person belongs to a region. Each region should have 1 vote in major votes (how to use a leader, to declare war, etc). The regions could eb highly factionalized, whereas one region may have more warmongers than builders, and warmonger candidates would win more often. the build orders of that region would reflect more warlike tendencies.

UberKrux, your idea of a more federal state would have been nice in the former game where the amount of members was many times larger than the current amount.

I think that we can better have a central led state because if people see that through the federal system their vote is not significant (they belong to the minority in the region and the majority in the region overrules them), they will get disinterested and will drop off.

A solution would be to let members switch between the regions this would however bring forth two major difficulties: 1) We'll get two or more opposing parties bound to regions, this would mean that there will be little difference between the new federal system and the central led system we had in the previous game; 2) We'll face a major disbalance through the country. A large part will be warmonger and another big part builder, another one perhaps labour.

This is a very good idea, but it deserves some more discussion.

Aidun

[Jonny]

I think we need the Imperial Expansion position back, at least during the first parts of the game, in order to:

1) Split up the DM's duties during the early game and early-mid game. It would be responsible for building new cities and controlling settlers.

2) It could also advise the SMC as to which directions to explore in on land and sea (but not directly move and control the units, that would still be the SMC's responibliity).

3) I've run in every IE election in the first Civ3 Demo Game, this would let me continue my streak.

[Kloreep]

Frankly, reason #2 is a good reason NOT to bring IE back, like PW and CP having to coordinate worker moves. But I wouldn't object to having an IE minister; the DM will probably be swamped with running sims for multiple queues, and it would ensure city placement is given a good look.

[DAVOUT]

We have seen in the first demogame that the impeachment does not work with one month terms. We have to find something else.

[UnOrthOdOx]

57.

Do not control the people with laws,
Nor violence nor espionage,
But conquer them with inaction.

For:
The more morals and taboos there are,
The more cruelty afflicts people;
The more guns and knives there are,
The more factions divide people;
The more arts and skills there are,
The more change obsoletes people;
The more laws and taxes there are,
The more theft corrupts people.

Yet take no action, and the people nurture eachother;
Make no laws, and the people deal fairly with eachother;
Own no interest, and the people cooperate with eachother;
Express no desire, and the people harmonize with eachother.

58.

When government is lazy and informal
The people are kind and honest;
When government is efficient and severe
The people are discontented and deceitful.

Good fortune follows upon disaster;
Disaster lurks within good fortune;
Who can say how things will end?
Perhaps there is no end.

Honesty is ever deceived;
Kindness is ever seduced;
Men have been like this for a long time.

So the sage is firm but not cutting,
Pointed but not piercing,
Straight but not rigid,
Bright but not blinding.

- excerpt from the Tao Te Ching

Something to think on. Were the 'problems' with the NewCon caused by too few laws, or too many?

'if it is not expressly forbidden, it is allowed' - Trip on the old Con.

Perhaps we need to make FEWER, less restrictive laws than try to write down exactly what each minister is allowed to do when and how.

By NOT writting in lots of laws and restrictions, we allow the ministers to govern how they see fit, and in a manner that suits them.

We have seen in the first demogame that the impeachment does not work with one month terms. We have to find something else.

AFAIK, there was only one attempt. It failed more due to a set of circumstances than an actual flaw in the system. The Court was not prepared at the time, and by the time it was, I had to leave so could not pursue the matter.

[Aidun]

UnOrthOdOx, please, this sounds anarchistic to me. We need basic rules about how the govenment should be structured, what rights we have and whot right we do NOT have. Without these any member, in the govenment could do anything he or she likes.
This quote is meaningless, please give some comments on the proposed reformings of the NewCon.

Aidun

[Beta]

This is a bit of a duplication of a post from another thread. It is more appropriately placed here. It accompanies my vote for a re-written constitution in the constitution poll. I would like the leadership - in whatever form it takes - to have some leeway to play the game. That puts more meaning behind the elections in the first place. And we split polls into three types:

1. election polls - binding
2. referenda - binding on leadership
3. opinion polls - not binding on the leadership

#2, referenda, would include declaration of war and peace, use of great leaders, and other gane aspects to be determined.

#3, polls, would cover city placement, city builds, etc.

Here was my post:

"In real-life, nations' leaders make decisions, sometimes the right ones, sometimes the wrong ones, sometimes it is not clear. Part of the enjoyment of the demo game should be the continual debate of the various options, and whether the leaders made the right move. Not whether it was legal for them to make that move.

As in real-life, we have elections, and a process for replacing the leadership if we the people are not happy with them.

So - I vote for balance. Maybe we should revisit what the newcon allows the leadership to do and not do. I would suggest more leeway is required. The leadership knows the wishes of the people through the polls (again, as per real life), but they should not in all cases be restricted by them. They could go against a poll and face the wrath of the voters.

Maybe we need the constitution to delineate between what items are governed by a referendum, which will be binding, and which are governed by a poll, which would not be (other than election polls of course.)"

[UnOrthOdOx]

Ill take this a bit one at a time.

Originally posted by Aidun
UnOrthOdOx, please, this sounds anarchistic to me.

Perhaps, I admit it sounds odd, but it works

We need basic rules about how the govenment should be structured, what rights we have and whot right we do NOT have.

Do we? Is it this artificial document that is 'giving' us these rights? Is it these rules that decide how we act?

Without these any member, in the govenment could do anything he or she likes.

Can they? Could they truly? Would it be any different from someone abusing the 'rights' given them by the artificial document to, say, impeach a president as per your example above, or perhaps in a different thread?

This quote is meaningless, please give some comments on the proposed reformings of the NewCon.

Aidun

Confusing, perhaps, requiring thought, definately, not meaningless.

I will instead give an example of how NO LAWS WILL WORK from an actual situation in game.

It is the start of the third term. MrWIA is MIA. His hard drive is toast, no one knows how long he is out.

I am left in charge of it all. I have had something come up at work, and I know I will be too busy to carry out turnCHATS, a vital function since we are heading into war, and CHATS are the only way to keep orders straight with the changing battlefield, and to keep interest.

I decide that I should appoint someone to play the turns for me. An assistant, if you will, and post asking for people who could. The Constitution at this time does not forbid me from doing such a thing, therefore it is not illegal or impeachable. HOWEVER, I am not allowed to do this, WHY? No rule is written, no artificial document is telling me that I cannot, THE PEOPLE tell me I cannot. Instead we come to a compromise that allows me to appoint one of the ministers in my stead should I not be able to make a chat. Thus, it is still an elected official making the turns.

No rules, and the people will govern themselves. It will provide interesting debates as well, sit back and enjoy it.

What do we need? We need only to set terms, set BASIC positions, and allow the ministers/pres to govern as they see fit, assign assistants, dont, who are we to tell them. Informally. PERHAPS a court to solve problems, but I think a public poll/trial would work just as well here.

If a minister abused his power, do you really think the people here would sit back and watch? We will police ourselves fine, we don't need to attempt to write every rule and regulation down, it only restricts and hinders progress. And I personally don't need a document here to tell me my rights.

Alas, I am but a servant, though. If people want rules, so be it, I have spoke my piece.

[civman2000]

No rules, and the people will govern themselves.

I agree, but I think part of them "governing themselves" is that they will make rules, even if no rules are forced upon them. We are the people right now. No one is forcing us to have any rules. Yet most of us want rules and if we are to be a large demogame with many active members (unlike the civ2dg which has never had a constitution) we will almost certainly end up adopting rules.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by civman2000

I agree, but I think part of them "governing themselves" is that they will make rules, even if no rules are forced upon them. We are the people right now. No one is forcing us to have any rules. Yet most of us want rules and if we are to be a large demogame with many active members (unlike the civ2dg which has never had a constitution) we will almost certainly end up adopting rules.

civman, I am not so sure 'most people' have even considered NOT having rules at this point. I am only trying to bring this point up. As I said, if people want them, Ill be more than happy to follow them and report on them.

I agree that it is natural to want rules, however, each rule is only a restriction, since no rule can ever be written to take into account all possibilities and situations. The C2DG as you claim opperates fine without even a constitution. I am not claiming to go to that extreme, but to leave it as light as possible. Set up the ministers, when elections are held, and that public polls reguarding orders, war, and leaders must be followed. Togas and the rest of the ConCon (sorry, forget the rest, but know Togas was the primary author with others providing insight and refinements) designed a fine piece of a document. However, do we TRULY need such a thing?

However, another example of how NO RULES worked perfecly well in the last demo game is the opinion polls and elections.

There was NEVER an official rule declaring them illegal, however they came up 3 times, each time, the people were told to please stop. Simple as that. Did we need to write another 2 paragraphs on how and when they are appropriate and what consequences, if any, would befall the poor fellow who made one? No, we governed ourselves.

[MrWhereItsAt]

UnOrthO - you have been managing, in far more eloquent ways, to argue more or less the case I would ideally like, and that which I am proud to say I helped the Civ2 Demo game adopt when the Constitution Committee assembled the broad rules we had set up for ourselves with only discussion, no Constitution or amendments required.

However, it is clear that many want at least some rules governing our little game. Hence I ask that we try and come up with a basic set of rules that we can all agree on. Keep in mind that perhaps we shouldn't need to actively police these rules, but we should be aware of them and be prepared to follow them to the best of our abilities. There may be circumstances where they are not fully followed, but these will be very special circumstances and we will not often hit these.

My thoughts:

Polling conventions: ie first post is neutral and clarifies the choice(s) to be made, a set poll length for all official polls.

Elections: nominations and elections on certain dates, adequate notice of times to be circulated in the form of newZupdates and in the forum, clear and constant form to the election polls, certain term lengths, possibly a maximum number of turns in a row that can be served by one citizen

Turnchats/other play sessions: adequate notice of times to be given to citizens and Ministers

Ministers' responsibilities: although I strongly believe all Ministers should cooperate and collaborate on areas of mutual interest, perhaps we need a guide for when Ministers' opinions conflict on who has the lasst say (the President, perhaps?)

Anything else to add to these simple guidelines?