Thread Tools
Old October 16, 2002, 16:59   #31
Reddawg
Prince
 
Reddawg's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oak Ridge, El Niño, Apolyton
Posts: 423
I suppose I didn't think about the appointment of Deputies much (by the way, where are these "recommendatons" made for things like Economic Deputy and Science Deputy)... but now that I think on it, it makes a lot of sense. Smaller concerns shouldn't need a ministerial position to control them, and then there's also the fact that some concerns of today (like Imperial Expansion) will be moot later in the game, and some non-existent concerns today (like pollution) will become problematic later on.

I can't even imagine running for president, even if I could (I can't attend chats from my university connection), I have too many enemies!

Just the other day, there was an assassination attempt on me.


Something else I want to bring up, unrelated... is the idea of a quorum. I think this is really necessary! I've noticed that some polls, either because of their timing or just because enough noise isn't made about them, have very few people vote on it. I think there should be a minimum amount of votes on any issue before it be validated... I guess a bill must be made about this lol.
Reddawg is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:07   #32
UnOrthOdOx
PtWDG2 TabemonoPtWDG Glory of WarApolyton Storywriters' GuildIron CiversApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Rabbits of CaerbannogCiv4 SP Democracy GamePolyCast TeamC4DG The Mercenary TeamC4WDG The Goonies
Emperor
 
UnOrthOdOx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: As cuddly as a cactus, as charming as an eel.
Posts: 8,196
I do not have a problem with the Constitution. What I am saying is that I do not believe we can act on this constitution until the Senate is organized, and I fear that will take some time.

You guys have spent, what, 1 1/2 months on this? Really think the Senate can organize any quicker? Should we be creating a Senate Organization Commiteee to solve this problem by the time we need a functional Senate?

A rough draft of how the Senate would have operated in the first month would have been nice is all. Covered by a clause "The Senate has the right to change it's organization without an amendment" or something similar...

To answer your questions:

No, anything can be enacted by a Senate Law

And no, the Law idea is fine.

However, I ask the public:

Can we really go into a term with this in place? There is no true structure for how the Senate will operate.

How are they to decide Economic spedatures, even for 'major' things given only 3 days between chats, and a poll requires 3 days? There is not the time. What if that poll fails?

Should the President truly have that much power over the coffers? This will make the President's agenda a part of the Campaign, I suppose. This can lead to people leaving the game if we get Presidents who want to push Military spending, or building spending, as the President can basically do what he wants with cash because the Senate doesn't have enough time to decide (as currently organized) so the President will be in charge until a law is passed somehow.


Another, more minor caveat. The FAM should be REQUIRED to consult the SMC reguarding peace. Not either/or with the President. And I feel the Senate should have some say in that as well. They declare war, why not peace?
__________________
One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin
You're wierd. - Krill

An UnOrthOdOx Hobby
UnOrthOdOx is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:11   #33
UnOrthOdOx
PtWDG2 TabemonoPtWDG Glory of WarApolyton Storywriters' GuildIron CiversApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Rabbits of CaerbannogCiv4 SP Democracy GamePolyCast TeamC4DG The Mercenary TeamC4WDG The Goonies
Emperor
 
UnOrthOdOx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: As cuddly as a cactus, as charming as an eel.
Posts: 8,196
Another question:

What is the reasoning for appointing the VP?

What is wrong with a simple vote?
__________________
One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin
You're wierd. - Krill

An UnOrthOdOx Hobby
UnOrthOdOx is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:18   #34
Hot Mustard
PtWDG RoleplayCivilization III Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty Python
King
 
Hot Mustard's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,681
Quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Another question:

What is the reasoning for appointing the VP?

What is wrong with a simple vote?
Well, I'm not on the committee, but it seems to me that this way, the President gets to choose who he's working with, which may make for a better administration.
Hot Mustard is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:22   #35
Thud
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerPtWDG RoleplayInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamNever Ending StoriesC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafC4BtSDG Templars
Prince
 
Thud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud to be an American
Posts: 759
The Big Book Of Points I Agree With
Quote:
I am uncomfortable with the money being dealt to the Senate
I kinda am too, just because I feel the power might not even be used.

Quote:
The word 'science' appears only twice in this document - astounding considering the importance of technology in this game. Similarily, there are zero (!) occurances of any form of 'explore'.

At minimum, I would suggest a couple of mandatory deputies:

A Science deputy under the Domestic Minister, responsible for advancing and advocating technology with any means possible.

An Exploration or Naval Commander under the SMC, responsible for all exploring new territory, boats, and settler and escorts.
Quote:
I feel responsible for the elimination of the position of Minister of the Economy. I don't know what else to say, except that I'm sad to see it go. I had thought by creating budgets a more effective and efficient use of our funds would be possible.
I would like to see the Senate pass into law Subcommittees which could keep up former MoE and MoS activities, i.e. tech reports and budget plans. This will also encourage the Senate to actually debate and use it's power to set taxes

My first bill will be to introduce the positions of Special Science Advisor to the Senate, Special Economic Advisor to the Senate, and a Board of Imperial Expansion.
__________________
"The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
Former President, C3SPDGI
Thud is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:24   #36
Togas
Civilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 SunshineC3CDG The Lost BoysC4DG The Mercenary TeamPtWDG RoleplayC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
Emperor
 
Togas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,245
Quote:
Originally posted by Reddawg
but now that I think on it, it makes a lot of sense. Smaller concerns shouldn't need a ministerial position to control them, and then there's also the fact that some concerns of today (like Imperial Expansion) will be moot later in the game, and some non-existent concerns today (like pollution) will become problematic later on.
Exactly. We kept only the core Ministers and made all of the others optional as deputies or appointees. We also made it so that individuals could serve under more than one minister. (See Art I, Sec 6 e) If they chose to, more than one Minister could appoint THE SAME GUY to be a deputy over a large area that overlaps, like Exploration and Expansion, and then DELEGATE POWERS (See Art I; Sec 2e, Sec 3g, Sec 4c) to that Deputy in common to carry through with an assigned task, like exploration.

Quote:
Originally posted by Reddawg
Something else I want to bring up, unrelated... is the idea of a quorum. I think this is really necessary! I think there should be a minimum amount of votes on any issue before it be validated... I guess a bill must be made about this lol.
This is the quorum that we settled on, but as you can tell, we're not completely sold on it, and put in a provision that the Senate could change it without having to go to the trouble of making an amendment.

Quote:
(i) The quorum: The total number of votes cast in the poll for passage must be greater than or equal to 25% of the total number of votes cast in the most recent Presidential election.
(ii) Any “abstain” votes are considered solely for quorum purposes. “Abstain” votes may not be considered “yea” or “nay” votes.
(iii) The Senate has the power to modify the quorum requirements or to perform a census without amending the Constitution.
Lastly, I am reading some grumblings from Unortho, but I really have to wonder if it's just being unhappy at the work that's ahead or if it's a feeling from him (and others?) that the Senate idea is not a good one. What is the root cause of the unhappiness? Want the old system (all the power with the Ministers) back?

I know the Senate is going to be a hastle, because getting so many strongly willed people to agree is always a chore, but in the end I feel it's the right thing to do. This game is a Democracy. As much power as is practical should be held by the people. I feel that we're acomplishing that here, but I also hope that the people who participate in the Senate are going to be responsible with the use of these new powers.

--Togas
__________________
Greatest Moments in ISDG chat:"(12/02/2003) <notyoueither> the moon is blue. hell is cold. quote me, but i agree with ET. :p"
Member of the Mercenary Team in the Civ 4 Team Democracy Game.
Former Consul for the Apolyton C3C Intersite Tournament Team.
Heir to the lost throne of Spain of the Roleplay Team in the PTW Democracy Multiplayer Team Game.
Togas is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:26   #37
Thud
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerPtWDG RoleplayInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamNever Ending StoriesC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafC4BtSDG Templars
Prince
 
Thud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud to be an American
Posts: 759
Points I Disagree With
Quote:
Immediately after the end of a turnplay I suspect there will be 17 Senators posting 17 Senate Bills to approve the allocation of funds for 1 temple here, a worker there, and an upgrade over behind that mountain somewhere. If 5 pass then we have 5 approved expenditures for 1 budget and I seriously doubt we will have the fundage to support them all.
I beleive the suggestion that an outrageous number of Senate Bills will be proposed is outrageous. If you think about it, we've always had the power to create Official Polls on any subject, there is only a change of semantics here.
__________________
"The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
Former President, C3SPDGI
Thud is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:30   #38
UnOrthOdOx
PtWDG2 TabemonoPtWDG Glory of WarApolyton Storywriters' GuildIron CiversApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Rabbits of CaerbannogCiv4 SP Democracy GamePolyCast TeamC4DG The Mercenary TeamC4WDG The Goonies
Emperor
 
UnOrthOdOx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: As cuddly as a cactus, as charming as an eel.
Posts: 8,196
I have a major problem with how this Constitution intends to use abstain votes. "they will be used for quorum purposes only"

This is the exact opposite of an Abstain.

Abstain should either NOT count towards the quorum, or if they do, they should count as NO. With them counting towards Quorum, it would be possible to pass a law with 3 yes, 1 no, and 40 abstain. This is just flat out wrong.

Abstains should not count, period. Not towards Quorum #'s, not as yes, not as no. And, all polls should be required to have abstain options.
__________________
One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin
You're wierd. - Krill

An UnOrthOdOx Hobby
UnOrthOdOx is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:33   #39
Thud
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerPtWDG RoleplayInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamNever Ending StoriesC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafC4BtSDG Templars
Prince
 
Thud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud to be an American
Posts: 759
Senate Chats and Supreme Speaker
Senate Chats

I think we should have some Senate Chats, in which people could discuss proposals and get stuff done quickly without the slow reaction and debate times of the board.

Particularly, Senate Chats should be used in a situation that is imminent (as Unortho describes) and does not have time to go through the debate process before the next Turn Chat.

Of course, a change to the constitution is not necessary to have these

Supreme Speaker

The Senate should have a Speaker; in order to organize senate chats, organize senate votes and debates, and appoint my proposed Special Adviors/Committees.

This post may require an amendment, but perhaps just a bill.
__________________
"The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
Former President, C3SPDGI

Last edited by Thud; October 16, 2002 at 17:39.
Thud is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:36   #40
Thud
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerPtWDG RoleplayInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamNever Ending StoriesC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafC4BtSDG Templars
Prince
 
Thud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud to be an American
Posts: 759
Unortho, I also beleive that all Ministers (as defined in constitution) should be elected.
__________________
"The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
Former President, C3SPDGI
Thud is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:42   #41
Reddawg
Prince
 
Reddawg's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oak Ridge, El Niño, Apolyton
Posts: 423
I'm sorry I missed the quorum article :-\ my bad. I like the 25% of presidential vote, I think that should be sufficient... well, maybe a little skimpy actually. We'll see.

About the abstentions in the U.N. an abstention is counted as a nay... I think they should be counted as so, otherwise there should not even BE an option to abstain. It's purposeless. This is getting really confusing and I have a midterm tomorrow, so I can't work any more cervos on this sorry, lol.

Reddawg
Reddawg is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:44   #42
Hot Mustard
PtWDG RoleplayCivilization III Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty Python
King
 
Hot Mustard's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,681
Quote:
Originally posted by Togas
Lastly, I am reading some grumblings from Unortho, but I really have to wonder if it's just being unhappy at the work that's ahead or if it's a feeling from him (and others?) that the Senate idea is not a good one. What is the root cause of the unhappiness? Want the old system (all the power with the Ministers) back?

I know the Senate is going to be a hastle, because getting so many strongly willed people to agree is always a chore, but in the end I feel it's the right thing to do. This game is a Democracy. As much power as is practical should be held by the people. I feel that we're acomplishing that here, but I also hope that the people who participate in the Senate are going to be responsible with the use of these new powers.
For the record, I like the Senate. It provides a more visible, and potentially simpler, method of participation. There was no way I'd ever have drafted an Amendment, but if Senate Bills can be short and sweet, I'm all for it.

I've only recently started actually participate in here after reading your exploits for awhile. The reason I took so long is that the perception given is that there was a core group of people (maybe 10-20) that not only ran the government, but dominated all discussions as well. This fact was actually reinforced in this thread, as my first post was missed amongst posts from longer standing members. If the Senate can change that, or even just give a more open perception to newcomers, it is worth whatever work or changes.
Hot Mustard is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 17:48   #43
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb

I'm quoting my own post as the Constitutional Convention refuse to acknowledge it or address my concerns. I do not like the idea of the exploration authority being under the Domestic Minister and also being forced to beg the SMC for units AND cutting the Foriegn Ministry our of the loop of contacting New Civs.
Firstly, please let me apologize for missing your post. To be perfectly honest, I'm feeling very overwhelmed right now -- Game's going fast, real life's still there, and I have agreed to put some things out once the Con Con has been published. If it seems that I have missed something, please do bring it to my attention, but don't assume I'm ignoring you . Please, however, everyone understand that I might miss a post here or there, might not see what you mean the first time, and might even screw up once or twice . For me, it's either that or not responding at all, and that's something I'd rather not do.

I'm going to try to move through and respond to everything in several posts, but understand that I'm only human, and might miss an important point (EDIT: or not have had a chance to reply yet). If I do, please give me a little tap and let me know.

Quote:
1)Exploration, City Site, and City naming should be under one office in my opinion. Rather than give the SMC power over war, exploration, and shipping I would prefer it be given wartime powers. The only way I could concieve of doing this is that the President assigns military units to a Minister (kinda historical) so that he could assign a warrior or horseman or galley to the Expansion person for exploration purposes. I do feel there should be an Expansion/Exploration person as the SMC tends to me a war minded individual and they tend to be more interested in building troops and attacking the enemy that exploring and founding cities for the Empire. Hence the dilema we are currently in where we are at a disadvantage for being first to contact the Lost Civs. I feel the position needs to be separate as it contains aspects of Domestic (founding cities and finding city sites), Foreign (seeking new civs), and Military (exploration). By no means does it necessarily have to be on equal footing with those other offices, I just feel putting it under one of them may prove to lean it towards one aspect or the other.
The general idea when doing this, I believe, was that the SMC's job is dealing with ALL units (except workers/settlers). The SMC can create his own deputies to help him with Expansion/Exploration, but I (at least) didn't feel it was necessary to grant the power to someone else as the Expansion/Exploration part of the game is nearly over. Our contienent is nearly colonized, and once we've found the lost colonies the only exploration left will be ship-based scouting. Having said that, does anyone else share this specific feeling (that the SMC cannot impartially deal with the issue)? The point here is to see the public's concerns, and if this concern is widespread...

Quote:
Originally posted by dejon

The intent is not to infringe on their power, but rather to have a formally recognized role for Science, through whatever means available in the constitution. If that means creation through the Senate of another Ministry, so be it.
I'm not sure if the Senate can create another Ministry or not -- advisory councils, yes, but a complete Ministry? I'd have to say I just don't know...

Having said that, what we wanted to do was make the President responsible for Science. I'd hope that the President would appoint a Science Minister, but I'm not totally sure I'd be for making it manditory -- I understand that the point isn't to take power away from the President, but I'd rather not take the power away anyway.


Quote:
Actually, I meant a Bill of Rights for the game populace, not the forum participants. For example:
- the right not to be starved to death
- the right to protection by the military, including from bombardment
- the right to compensation for work (no slavery)
- etc

In essence, a moral framework for gameplay, as suggested by eewolf in his brief, but memorable, visit.
Ah, gotcha. Never bothered to read eewolf's thread, but you're very right -- that wasn't our focus, and I personally don't plan to bring it up if I can avoid it .


Quote:
Originally posted by dejon

Well, I'm not on the committee, but it seems to me that this way, the President gets to choose who he's working with, which may make for a better administration.
Exactly right. By letting the President select his Vice President, we can ensure that A) Solid, loosing presidental canidates can become VP, B) VP is a true assistant to the President instead of a meaningless position, and C) The President and VP can work well together. Other members of the convention had some very solid arguements behind this, but I'll let them present it once they have time.

Further replies will come in another post .

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:10   #44
Togas
Civilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 SunshineC3CDG The Lost BoysC4DG The Mercenary TeamPtWDG RoleplayC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
Emperor
 
Togas's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,245
Quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Abstain should either NOT count towards the quorum, or if they do, they should count as NO. With them counting towards Quorum, it would be possible to pass a law with 3 yes, 1 no, and 40 abstain. This is just flat out wrong.
Flat out wrong???

Consider this: A Bill is proposed. You have no opinion on it either way. You abstain because you don't care if it gets passed or not.

Quorum ensures that enough people actually read the poll and gave some though to the decision.

By clicking on abstain you are saying, "I don't care if you pass it or not, but at least I read it and gave it some thought."

By counting those abstains towards the quorum we ensure that enough people actually looked at this bill and made a conscious choice to either back it, vote against it, or declare neutrality.

If it turns out that most people abstained and the bill was passed anyway, so what? More people wanted it to pass than those who didn't. That's the real measure. The abstain people are just the ones who either can't make up their mind, or don't want to on that particular issue.

--Togas
__________________
Greatest Moments in ISDG chat:"(12/02/2003) <notyoueither> the moon is blue. hell is cold. quote me, but i agree with ET. :p"
Member of the Mercenary Team in the Civ 4 Team Democracy Game.
Former Consul for the Apolyton C3C Intersite Tournament Team.
Heir to the lost throne of Spain of the Roleplay Team in the PTW Democracy Multiplayer Team Game.
Togas is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:14   #45
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
Re: The Big Book Of Points I Agree With
On Money:
Quote:
Originally posted by Thud

I kinda am too, just because I feel the power might not even be used.
Actually, it's (my) hope that the Senate doesn't use the power -- unless they need to. I'd rather the President deal with the day-to-day stuff, but I do like the way that the Senate has the ultimate authority. It's good for balance of power purposes, I think.

Quote:
I would like to see the Senate pass into law Subcommittees which could keep up former MoE and MoS activities, i.e. tech reports and budget plans. This will also encourage the Senate to actually debate and use it's power to set taxes
I think Arnelos proposed something Similar. Either way, it's a Senate-organizational problem, so I don't have to think about it right now .

Quote:
My first bill will be to introduce the positions of Special Science Advisor to the Senate, Special Economic Advisor to the Senate, and a Board of Imperial Expansion.
To be totally honest, I wouldn't propose so many positions, since a key point of what we tried to do was reduce the number of positions and remove pointless ones and ones without power. Having said that, it's also unrelated to the Constitution, and I'm glad you see use in the Senate Laws idea .

Quote:
Originally posted by Togas
Exactly. We kept only the core Ministers and made all of the others optional as deputies or appointees. We also made it so that individuals could serve under more than one minister. (See Art I, Sec 6 e) If they chose to, more than one Minister could appoint THE SAME GUY to be a deputy over a large area that overlaps, like Exploration and Expansion, and then DELEGATE POWERS (See Art I; Sec 2e, Sec 3g, Sec 4c) to that Deputy in common to carry through with an assigned task, like exploration.
Exactly! Togas hit it on the head (as he should, a lot of these ideas are his ) -- if Exploration should be shared between the Senate and SMC (just an example, not saying it should or shouldn't), one person can be a joint representative in charge of coordination between the two, and serve as deputies of both.

Quote:
Lastly, I am reading some grumblings from Unortho, but I really have to wonder if it's just being unhappy at the work that's ahead or if it's a feeling from him (and others?) that the Senate idea is not a good one. What is the root cause of the unhappiness? Want the old system (all the power with the Ministers) back?
I'm also trying to get a feel for this. Yes, the Senate system'll take a lot of work, and will be a challange, and no, I can't say how everything'll come together right now -- but does anyone seriously think it's worse then what we have? Admittedly, the first month will be rocky, but I think we've set a solid foundation here, and I hope that the Citizens agree that we do have a good foundation.

Quote:
I know the Senate is going to be a hastle, because getting so many strongly willed people to agree is always a chore, but in the end I feel it's the right thing to do. This game is a Democracy. As much power as is practical should be held by the people. I feel that we're acomplishing that here, but I also hope that the people who participate in the Senate are going to be responsible with the use of these new powers.
. Well said.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thud
Senate Chats
**snip**
Supreme Speaker
**snip**
This post may require an amendment, but perhaps just a bill.
For all it's worth, I'd say just a bill .

Quote:
I have a major problem with how this Constitution intends to use abstain votes. "they will be used for quorum purposes only"
I think it depends how you consider Abstains. No matter what, however, you have a good point, and thanks for bringing it up. I'd like to point out that this is (as far as I know, anyway ) only a draft -- we can consider things like this before we bring the final version to a vote (I think, anyway -- Togas, am I right about that?). I promise to think about it, and will do my best to make sure it's not forgotten and considered by the Convention. (Of course, I'm sure UnOrthO'll remind me if I do have a small memory lapse ).

Quote:
Originally posted by Thud
Unortho, I also beleive that all Ministers (as defined in constitution) should be elected.
Which constitution? By the new one, there are only three true Ministers (with the VP being a bit of a mix). By our current -- lots more (some of which we can surely eliminate). Are you saying you prefer the current system?

Quote:
Originally posted by dejon

For the record, I like the Senate. It provides a more visible, and potentially simpler, method of participation. There was no way I'd ever have drafted an Amendment, but if Senate Bills can be short and sweet, I'm all for it.
*snip*
Always good to hear .

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:18   #46
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally posted by Togas

Flat out wrong???

Consider this: A Bill is proposed. You have no opinion on it either way. You abstain because you don't care if it gets passed or not.

Quorum ensures that enough people actually read the poll and gave some though to the decision.

By clicking on abstain you are saying, "I don't care if you pass it or not, but at least I read it and gave it some thought."

By counting those abstains towards the quorum we ensure that enough people actually looked at this bill and made a conscious choice to either back it, vote against it, or declare neutrality.

If it turns out that most people abstained and the bill was passed anyway, so what? More people wanted it to pass than those who didn't. That's the real measure. The abstain people are just the ones who either can't make up their mind, or don't want to on that particular issue.

--Togas
That's how I've always considered Abstain -- not a vote for "this poll is flawed", but a vote for "I'm neutral". In that case, I think Togas' reasoning's hold water, and I'd be inclined to support them. Having said that, I understand that what "Abstain" actually means is a really tough and hotly debated issue, and I'd like to hear what others think: Does abstain mean A) No opinion, B) Don't care, or C) Flawed poll? (This is addressing Reddawg's post too -- Reddawg, I haven't missed you ).

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:18   #47
Hot Mustard
PtWDG RoleplayCivilization III Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty Python
King
 
Hot Mustard's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,681
Quote:
Originally posted by adaMada
Ah, gotcha. Never bothered to read eewolf's thread, but you're very right -- that wasn't our focus, and I personally don't plan to bring it up if I can avoid it .
Ah, but I may not let you avoid it!

There is no better time to think about it than when revisiting our constitution!

Maybe I'll start writing RP stories from the viewpoints of citizens that are starving, were once bombarded on by us, or are our slaves.
Hot Mustard is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:23   #48
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
2) Currently the NewCon would require a vote of the Senate to determine the outcome of a GL. I would think it would be beneficial for a standing task for a GL to exist before any turnchat/turnthread commences otherwise they would play several turns with the GL standing there doing nothing and preventing us from generating a new one while they waited for the end of the turnplay (new word got tired of typing chat and thread) to get the Senate's wishes for the GL.

Anyway, that could be addressed by a Senate Bill. I also feel we should have some prerequisites for a Senate Bill to be proposed or we may see 10 to 12 a day as there is nor requirement for prior discussion.
Missed this part of your post before.

2) That would be a senate bill, in my opinion.

Prerequisites for a Senate Bill? Anyone have any suggestions for any? I can't come up with anything that makes sense and isn't overly restrictive... I wouldn't be against the idea, but honestly have no thoughts on a good way to go about doing it.

Also, if there are any issues that someone would like to know about but are getting lost in this thread, feel free to PM me. I'll make sure that the answer is publically posted someplace so no one's out of the loop, and this thread is getting so big so fast that I can't promise to respond to every post anymore, though I will try to do my best to address every issue I see.

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:23   #49
Hot Mustard
PtWDG RoleplayCivilization III Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty Python
King
 
Hot Mustard's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,681
Quote:
Originally posted by adaMada
That's how I've always considered Abstain -- not a vote for "this poll is flawed", but a vote for "I'm neutral". In that case, I think Togas' reasoning's hold water, and I'd be inclined to support them. Having said that, I understand that what "Abstain" actually means is a really tough and hotly debated issue, and I'd like to hear what others think: Does abstain mean A) No opinion, B) Don't care, or C) Flawed poll? (This is addressing Reddawg's post too -- Reddawg, I haven't missed you ).
-- adaMada
I would say A), neutral. If you don't care, you wouldn't vote (like most real citizens). If you object to the poll, voice your objections (don't vote either).
Hot Mustard is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:34   #50
civman2000
Civilization III Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy GameNationStatesNever Ending StoriesDiplomacyInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG RoleplayC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
Emperor
 
civman2000's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: of the Martian Empire
Posts: 4,969
I don't like how abstains are automatically not counted except in the quorum. I think they should count for the quorum, the creator of the poll MUST specify whetehr an abstain is counted as a "no" vote or not, and if abstain wins more than 25% of the vote, regardless of what the creator of the poll said, they count as "no" votes (to avoid the 3-1-40 situation).
__________________
Ham grass chocolate.

"This should be the question they ask you before you get to vote. If you answer 'no', then they brand you with a giant red 'I' on your forehead and you are forever barred from taking part in the electoral process again."--KrazyHorse
"I'm so very glad KH is Canadian."--Donegeal
civman2000 is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:41   #51
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally posted by civman2000
I don't like how abstains are automatically not counted except in the quorum. I think they should count for the quorum, the creator of the poll MUST specify whetehr an abstain is counted as a "no" vote or not, and if abstain wins more than 25% of the vote, regardless of what the creator of the poll said, they count as "no" votes (to avoid the 3-1-40 situation).
I could probably accept an 'enough abstains will lead to the vote not passing' solution, but I think it's important that we specify, in the CoL, what abstains count as. If we don't, it'll lead to the confusion we have now. I think Abstains shouldn't count as anything, since that makes the most sense -- if a person doesn't want the poll to pass, he should vote 'no', not abstain . The % solution might be a bit troubled too, since it could lead to people who want the motion to fail voting 'abstain' instead of no, since it'd take 50% of the votes being no to defeat a bill otherwise, but only 25% of the votes being abstain.

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:42   #52
GhengisFarb™
lifer
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG Glory of WarCivilization II Democracy GameCivilization III PBEMC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamCiv4 SP Democracy Game
Deity
 
GhengisFarb™'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 11,289
Re: Points I Disagree With
Quote:
Originally posted by Thud
I beleive the suggestion that an outrageous number of Senate Bills will be proposed is outrageous. If you think about it, we've always had the power to create Official Polls on any subject, there is only a change of semantics here.
You need to read it again.

To post an Official Poll you currently have to have a prepoll discussion thread BEFORE you can post a poll.

To post a Senate Bill you have to be breathing. And that qualification is a little fuzzy.

Currently polls are used for opinions and guidance. The Senate Bills take the place of MANY MINISTER POSTIONS. Everything Reddawg did, is now done by a Senate Bill. In order to spend money any Senator (which is EVERYONE who doesn't hold an elected position) just posts the bill. No discussion, no prepoll, no second, no approval needed. None. If you don't hold and elected position you can post a new Senate Bill every couple of minutes.

Won't happen? Two words:

panag and skywalker.
(nothing against them, they just post every 10 seconds)


Quote:
Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I have a major problem with how this Constitution intends to use abstain votes. "they will be used for quorum purposes only"

This is the exact opposite of an Abstain.

Abstain should either NOT count towards the quorum, or if they do, they should count as NO. With them counting towards Quorum, it would be possible to pass a law with 3 yes, 1 no, and 40 abstain. This is just flat out wrong.

Abstains should not count, period. Not towards Quorum #'s, not as yes, not as no. And, all polls should be required to have abstain options.
You are completely wrong UnOrthO. An Abstain by definition is "I agree to go along with what every the majority decides."

You want to call me on this? I'm a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, have 6 copies of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised and can start quoting Parliamentary Procedure in my sleep.

An abstain is NOT A NAY. If you want to vote nay, you vote nay. You don't need two "no"'s. Some organizations count abstain as nay AND THEY ARE WRONG. They do not understand the most basic elements of Parliamentary Procedure and its sad.

Yea means approval.
Nay means disapproval.
Abstain means you are neutral and are willing to let the others decide.
GhengisFarb™ is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:44   #53
Thud
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerPtWDG RoleplayInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamNever Ending StoriesC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafC4BtSDG Templars
Prince
 
Thud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud to be an American
Posts: 759
Quote:
Which constitution? By the new one, there are only three true Ministers (with the VP being a bit of a mix). By our current -- lots more (some of which we can surely eliminate). Are you saying you prefer the current system?
Let me clarify. I want the 3 'new' minister positions plus the VP to be elected. I do not beleive the constitution was clear on whether the 3 ministers were elected or not, though I assume they are.
__________________
"The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
Former President, C3SPDGI
Thud is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:47   #54
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally posted by Thud


Let me clarify. I want the 3 'new' minister positions plus the VP to be elected. I do not beleive the constitution was clear on whether the 3 ministers were elected or not, though I assume they are.
The three ministers are elected.

The VP is currently appointed (with a senate confirmation), as we felt that this would lead to better governments. Again, I'll let NYE/Apoc/Togas comment before I say much else, since some of them had one or two very persusasive arguements for appointment (good enough to win me from neutral to for ). If anyone disagrees with the method of appointment (post election confirmation), I will comment on that, since I was for that method over the others we considered.

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:47   #55
Thud
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization III Democracy GameCivilization III MultiplayerPtWDG RoleplayInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamNever Ending StoriesC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamPtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafC4BtSDG Templars
Prince
 
Thud's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Proud to be an American
Posts: 759
Quote:
Yea means approval.
Nay means disapproval.
Abstain means you are neutral and are willing to let the others decide.
Indeed, that is exactly what abstain is. However, it is used only when there are a SET NUMBER of voters, and they are all expected to vote on a bill. We do not have this situation, as not everyone must vote, they may simply not reply to the poll. Indeed, there is no purpose to an abstain function in our case.
__________________
"The Enrichment Center is required to inform you that you will be baked, and then there will be cake"
Former President, C3SPDGI
Thud is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:50   #56
Reddawg
Prince
 
Reddawg's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oak Ridge, El Niño, Apolyton
Posts: 423
one thing to say, about there being a 'core group' that dominates... thats definitely true, i will not argue it. it's only natural and hard to be avoided.... but i dont encourage it. we just tend to do it, as human beings. but i can tell you its not That hard to break into the core group... you just have to put forth an effort to be involved!
Reddawg is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:51   #57
adaMada
Civilization III Democracy GameTrade Wars / BlackNova TradersPtWDG RoleplayRise of Nations MultiplayerInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
King
 
adaMada's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: "The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Posts: 1,848
Re: Re: Points I Disagree With
Quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb

You need to read it again.

To post an Official Poll you currently have to have a prepoll discussion thread BEFORE you can post a poll.

To post a Senate Bill you have to be breathing. And that qualification is a little fuzzy.

Currently polls are used for opinions and guidance. The Senate Bills take the place of MANY MINISTER POSTIONS. Everything Reddawg did, is now done by a Senate Bill. In order to spend money any Senator (which is EVERYONE who doesn't hold an elected position) just posts the bill. No discussion, no prepoll, no second, no approval needed. None. If you don't hold and elected position you can post a new Senate Bill every couple of minutes.
Any suggestion for a way around this? The Con Con is looking for feedback in general, and it'd be nice if someone could propose a solution to the problem that we can consider .

Quote:
Won't happen? Two words:

panag and skywalker.
(nothing against them, they just post every 10 seconds)
It feels like I'm the only one who's posting every ten seconds right now :whipesbrow:.

-- adaMada
__________________
Civ 3 Democracy Game:
PTW Game: Proud member of the Roleplay Team, and Ambassador to Glory of War
Intersite PTW Game: Member of Apolyton
adaMada is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 18:55   #58
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Quote:
Originally posted by Thud
Let me clarify. I want the 3 'new' minister positions plus the VP to be elected. I do not beleive the constitution was clear on whether the 3 ministers were elected or not, though I assume they are.
Yes. The elections are mandated in Article VII.

We opted for an appointed VP after much debate. Partly, it came down to our memories of Trip being assisted by a VP with whom he did not have a really good relationship. Nothing against that person, but he did not enjoy Trip's faith. In fact, it could have been much worse.

If both are elected, what happens if the two detest each other and can not cooperate in any way, shape, or form? The game could bog.

We have observed the excellent results that can be achieved by an active VP and we felt that an appointed one would lead to desirable results more often.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 19:09   #59
UnOrthOdOx
PtWDG2 TabemonoPtWDG Glory of WarApolyton Storywriters' GuildIron CiversApolytoners Hall of FameC4BtSDG Rabbits of CaerbannogCiv4 SP Democracy GamePolyCast TeamC4DG The Mercenary TeamC4WDG The Goonies
Emperor
 
UnOrthOdOx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: As cuddly as a cactus, as charming as an eel.
Posts: 8,196
Fortunately we have the perfect example of a case to look at abstains.

/me opens his extensive book of links

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56344


Also known as Court Case 1.

Togas, NYE, I refuse to believe you two do not remember this, or that you thought I would have not said something on this point.

Abstains, as Thud states, are a method used when there is a defined number of voters. In such a situation it is easy to say: you need 25 votes to pass a law. If too many abstain, the law cannot pass. I argue that Abstains DO count as neutral, but should also effect the outcome of the poll.

Here with the NewCon, we have a similar oportunity. The Quorum can act as this set number of voters. Or, in a case where the total votes surpass the 25% quorum, the whole # of votes should count as the Quorum IMO.

Look at the poll I link to. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Quorum is actually 29 (though at the time of it's posting the quorum would have been more like 50...). Now, you will notice the poll has attained the quorum. 19 have voted YES, 8 NO, and 2 Abstain. With the Abstains counting to quorum, the poll has enough votes. With them not counting as anything else, the poll actually passes. However, 2/3 of the quorum have NOT voted YES. In a RL situation, this poll would not pass a situation using a Quorum, or set # of votes. That is why I am against using Abstains in such a manner. If there is not enough public interest for 2/3 of the people who READ, and VOTE to vote YES, the law should not pass. This is just my opinion, however. The court has ruled otherwise, according to the statements in Case 1 for any interested, and say the Abstains should be thrown out. However, this is a very different board, a very different citizenship, and a very different group of Judges. Perhaps there is reason to change that view with the introduction of this Quorum?
__________________
One who has a surplus of the unorthodox shall attain surpassing victories. - Sun Pin
You're wierd. - Krill

An UnOrthOdOx Hobby
UnOrthOdOx is offline  
Old October 16, 2002, 19:17   #60
Arnelos
Civilization III Democracy GamePtWDG RoleplayInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization III PBEMPtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamIron CiversApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization IV: MultiplayerC4DG SarantiumCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton Team
Emperor
 
Arnelos's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:27
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: of the Free World
Posts: 7,296
Con Con,

FIRST:

I really like this new constitution on the whole. It gives a much tighter and more explicitly outlined delineation of legitimate authority on most issues. The thing I like the most is the role for the Senate... this is absolutely awesome and precisely what I was hoping for (as adaMada suggested about me in a post above in this thread ).

You guys have done some awesome work and I appreciate it

The Senate is by far, in my opinion, the best of your achievements here.

SECOND:

HOWEVER, there is ONE problem I'd like point out which I noticed repeatedly throughout the document...

In several places, especially in the section about the various ministers, there are statements that "such and such a power is under minister A or minister B" with no additional explanation... or that "if the minister A is unable to perform his duty in this regard, the power falls to minister B or minister C" without further explanation.... or that "the Senate or the President has X power"...

This is going to be an absolute nightmare for the Court. What's going to happen is that when Minister A doesn't make the decision and Minister B and Minister C disagree on what to decide, they have equal claims to the decision with a line that merely says "or" and the Court is going to have to decide which one to go with....

The most problematic are the lines that are vague, using the word "or" to refer to powers that fall to the President/Minister OR the Senate... now I could have simply missed it, but I did not find anywhere that if the Senate passes a Bill and a Minister decides something else that the one has power over the other... unless it is explicitly stated which has supremacy (or at least which has supremacy under different conditions), the Court has no basis upon which to decide who has the legal authority to make a final decision when the two come into conflict.

FURTHERMORE, while I could simply be missing the line, I didn't find a line that states that the ministers are bound by Senate Bills... it simply says that later decisions, whether Executive Orders or Senate Bills, trump earlier decisions, whether Executive Orders or Senate Bills... without explicitly establishing that the Senate Bills have supremacy (barring executive veto) over Executive Orders, you open up the possibility that the ministers can simply make executive orders reversing every Senate Bill as soon as they pass... if so, why have Senate Bills?

IN CONCLUSION:

I really love the Senate and I love how far you've come in more clearly delineating responsibility, but you need to establish more explicit rules on your cases of shared authority. Where shared authority over a power exists, the constitution needs to be explicit over which position or body has final supremacy on what if there's a conflict. There are too many "or" statements regarding powers in this constitution. Altering some of them to establish Minister A, or Minister B if Minister A is unable/unwilling (or whatever)... would go a long way to making this document even better at delineating clear lines of legitimate authority and make the Court's job less of a headache.

This issue I've raised aside, this is an EXCELLENT document.
Arnelos is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team