ACDG Government structure.

[Kody]

I volunteer Maniac as chairman.

[Method]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Positions:
Chairman of The Party
The Head Honcho, Big Cheese, etc. Final authority on all actions of the government. May remove other officials from office, appoint new ones, resolve disputes over the law, etc. Other than that, power mostly symbolic for RP purposes. Unless he decides to step down, would be Chairman for the length of the game. Because of this power, would be disallowed from holding any of the other game positions. Would also post elections.

I would hope the chairman wouldn't *actually* remove and appoint people from or from office (unless there was a really good reason) or make despotic decisions. Then it wouldn't really be much of a democracy game (even though this is the Hive and playing a demo game as the hive is just a little contradictory)

The chairman seems to me somwhat like Justices of other games, with the posting elections and soforth..

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Method
I would hope the chairman wouldn't *actually* remove and appoint people from or from office (unless there was a really good reason) or make despotic decisions. Then it wouldn't really be much of a democracy game (even though this is the Hive and playing a demo game as the hive is just a little contradictory)

The chairman seems to me somwhat like Justices of other games, with the posting elections and soforth..

Well if I may say so the Hive in the current demogame seems to be doing just fine. It really depends on who is Chairman, if they chose to be benevolent then the government functions smoothly, if they choose to be tyrannical then well everyone else is screwed.

[Vev]

Everything is fine

no matter how many times we have tried to overthrow him

Oops, did I say it out loud?

[GeneralTacticus]

If the Chairman chooses to be a tyrant, there's a simple solution - invoke the rules we discussed earlier regarding coups and so forth, and if you can get enough support together, overthrow him.

[Kody]

NEWS BULLETIN

Chairman Volatire has been overthrown. Chairman Xenobanana elected by the Hive's people.

Chairman Xenobanana stated he would bring far reaching changes to the Hive government, its policies and ultimately it's people. The Hive was awaiting Xenobanana's victory speech, however he did not show up. Xenobanana has gained popularity in many opinion polls, however experts are confused what decisions were actually made when people voted for Chairman Xenobanana.

[Octavian X]

I will volunteer to be the Chairman. If selected, I will curb my more violent tendancies to allow for a better game (one where people aren't shot at random).

This, of couse, assumes the Chairman is the kind of Chairman my own proposal envisioned. I don't have a working copy of SMAC anymore, so I couldn't exactly fill out a ministerial positon. Besides, I've done the whole judicial thing before - I served as a member of the court for a long time at CFC's Civ3DG.

[Maniac]

I volunteer Maniac as chairman.

Why thanks!



I have finished browsing through the site about the USSR I mentioned earlier. One thing is clear: it's impossible to derive a clear government structure from them. There are committees, commissions, secretariats, councils, departments and ministries which all seem to have similar duties. Also it is common to accumulate posts in different organizations. And though one may formally be the head of a certain government department, de facto the power often lies with some party sceretary, so the choice what to call the heads of our government positions isn't obvious.

Having said that, I would like to propose my version of a possible government structure:

First, all participants of the game are members of the party's Central Committee. That organization, together with the politburo and the Central Committee Secretariat has a large influence on discussion policy alternatives and deciding the policy that the executive government has to follow. Being all Central Committee members would be the roleplay explanation that secretaries, ministers and chairmen have to poll on what policy to follow instead of just acting on their own. Knowing that:

General Secretary

• posts nomination and elections thread
• guardian of the constitution
• tries to find replacements if a government official becomes inactive
• moderator of a hopefully newly created "AC - Police State Game" forum
• chairman of the politburo
• appoints the full members and candidate members of the party's politburo

Politburo members

• Though in reality they had the most power, since we're all high party members anyway I would see this here as a mere honourary title given by the General Secretary to the most active and influential members of our faction. It could perhaps give the politburo member an informal authority, and the right to brag with that title in your signature.
• Perhaps when there is a constitution issue, the judges for the Supreme Court could be chosen out of this politburo, consisting of the most respected Hive members.

Chairman of the Council of Ministers

• This position is the head of the executive government. The turn player in other words.
• making turnthreads, posting turnlogs, posting save files...
• If a government official didn't give orders, the Chairman may act with emergency power. This removes the need for an Alpha Talent, as the other half of the previous AT duties would be performed by the General Secretary.

The executive government was largely controlled by the party's Politburo and the Central Committee Secretariat, so I would call the different positions "Secretary purviewing the blah blah...":

Blah blah being:

State Committee for Science and Technology, and the Ideological Department
Controlling artifacts, tech and SE polls...

Ministry of Factional Defence, Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD), Committee for State Security (KGB)
Military and probe units

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
diplomacy

State Planning Committee (Gosplan)
Makes five-year plans. Previous Internal Affairs Directorate. Renamed because in the USSR Internal Affairs refer to the police and non-political crime.


Then there are the previous regional governors. If we follow the USSR style, they should be:
First Secretary of a XX Republic

[Lemmy]

hmmm, so far i like Maniac's suggestion best...the other are overcomplicated by realism.
Just have seperate positions controllling seperate aspects of the game where people are voted into the positions.

[Corellion]

Maniac's suggestion sounds good right now.

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, to Maniac's suggestion - although I'd prefer to cut out the 'Committee' bit, if possible.

[Maniac]

That's three people in favour of my proposal. Does it need to be polled ( in essence only the Chairman's and General Secretary's functions are slightly different from Lemmy's and Octavian X's proposal)? And if so, does it need to be polled as a whole, or the division of functions and the titles for those functions seperately?

[Octavian X]

Ideally, such a choice would be polled. Of Maniac's proposal, I do miss the old supreme Chairman spot (though, we could always roleplay with Chairman Yang...)

[Maniac]

The Chairman (of the Council of Ministers) would be the turn player.
I didn't make this clear before. Since you can't change forum moderator every month, I was assuming - in the spirit of the previous proposals - that the General Secretary would be chosen once now and then be General Secretary for the rest of the game until he becomes inactive, and a new one needs to be elected. So he would be the supreme chairman you included in your proposal, but one with no legislative or executive decision power at all. It would be mainly an administrative duty. A sort of Alpha Talent making sure everything runs smoothly.

[Lemmy]

Maniac, i think it should be polled seperately, i agree with the division of the functions, but not really sure about the (minister's) names and i think other feel the same.

For the ministers we should choose if we call them commitees or ministries, not use both.
If we choose committees then the chosen official would be called Commisioner?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Maniac
Since you can't change forum moderator every month...

Why couldn't we? We do it constantly in the Civ3 DG. Every new Prez that comes along, I PM Dan and ask him to swap mod powers over. It has never been a problem - even now with the extra workload for him (Mark being away) he always gets back within a few days with the changes and seems to have no problem there whatsoever.

[Maniac]

Ah, thanks for the info.

In that case, do we need some permanent General Secretary, or should everyone be elected?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Maniac, i think it should be polled seperately, i agree with the division of the functions, but not really sure about the (minister's) names and i think other feel the same.

For the ministers we should choose if we call them commitees or ministries, not use both.
If we choose committees then the chosen official would be called Commisioner?

I was thinking of calling them all Secretaries. Though the title "Secretary" may already be a bit overused.

I wouldn't know what to call the combination of Science and Social Engineering though. As for the others:
Secretary for Factional Defence / Military Affairs
Secretary for Foreign Affairs
Secretary for Economic Policy / Affairs
?

In a possible constitution I was thinking of something along the lines of:

Secretary for Factional Defence

Holds the positions of:

• Minister of Defence: is responsible for all offense-capable military units
• Minister of Internal Affairs: is responsible for all base garrisons, and for performing police duties
• Chairman of the Committee for State Security (KGB) : is responsible for all probe units

That way we introduce all sorts of real-life USSR government positions to our constitution, good for role-playing, but give each official still the same general title, instead of Commissioner for one guy and Minister for another.

What do you think of it?

[AdamTG02]

How's this?

The Chairman can post a "vote of no confidence" in the General Secretary. If this succeeds, the Chairman then posts a poll for a new General Secretary. The old GS cannot be a candidate, nor can the Chairman.

Allows a government changeover wityhout the messiness of coups (purges can come later), and has the benefit of allowing the General Secretary to remain in office indefinitely most of the time.

[Lemmy]

...What do you think of it?

Hmm, i'm not sure if the "subpositions" like Minister of Defence should be mentioned...i'd prefer a constitution like the first ACDG, just positions, and tasks...but poll it. It's acceptable for me

[Maniac]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
How's this?

The Chairman can post a "vote of no confidence" in the General Secretary. If this succeeds, the Chairman then posts a poll for a new General Secretary. The old GS cannot be a candidate, nor can the Chairman.

Would a mere "vote of no confidence" of the Chairman be sufficient for new General Secretary elections, or should the previous GS first be impeached/purged by a 66% pro-purge vote?

[AdamTG02]

A 2/3 vote to purge the GS makes sense. Otherwise the vote could hinge on who is paying attention at any specific election.

The only thing is that a Chairman had better be very sure that he will succeed in his vote to depose -- or he is essentially committing political suicide. I donm't think anyone would object to a General Secretary removing and banning from office one who sought to depose him.

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, that sounds good - although I think coups should still be an option, if the people in question want to start one. They should be less dependant on voting and more on holding positions of pwoer, etc, but they should also be riskier - if the Chairman tries to pruge the GS by vote, if he loses, he may be the only one to fall; if half the Politburo tries to seize power and fails, goodbye to that half of the Politburo.

[Nubclear]

Hmm....We need a lot more positions.

[Octavian X]

The only change I'd add would be forcing those who are voting for a coup against the ruling GS to actually do it publically, instead of hiding behind normal, anonymous polls. This way, the GS has a key tool: removal from office, or public shame, if the coup is unsucessful.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Octavian X
The only change I'd add would be forcing those who are voting for a coup against the ruling GS to actually do it publically, instead of hiding behind normal, anonymous polls. This way, the GS has a key tool: removal from office, or public shame, if the coup is unsucessful.

Yes, that was basically what I was proposing; a coup is easier to pull off, but the consequences of failure are much more severe.