New amendement discussion!!!

Pedrunn · February 9, 2003, 07:37

Last Chat mapfi made a good point:

"Funny (or not) how Pedrunn always offers delegates positions for other ministers...
(...)
what allows you (pedrunn) to do that for your fellow ministers if they haven't done it? Nothing..."

I went through the constitution and he is right!!!

There is a part of the constitution which says...

Quote:

(d) In case of missing orders for a whole turn from a minister and all his delegates the President may not play on.

According to this, last chat was unconstitutional. Since Wise Ass didnt gave me the guide lines and his delegate Immortal Wombat had to leave. Therefore we played making decision in his place!!!
Therefore i gave his position to mrbaggins who has participated actively in the domestic affairs discussions and i do believe was going to be a great MoDA.

Therefore i have some questions now....

What should be reviewed for the next turn chats:
a) The section of the constitution where lays the problem
b) The ministers who caused the lack of guidelines given.

In that specific game chat what should i do:
a) halt the game chat?
b) play in his place and could/should I give the missing position to someone else.

mapfi · February 9, 2003, 08:47

That's what I meant. Of course, as long as nobody takes this to court there's always some leeway...

1b - he needs to appoint more delegates or make sure his delegate is there if he isn't
2a - sad but yes - we didn't really want it in another way because otherwise the Pres would be playing on like he wants ignoring the elected ministers

medio · February 9, 2003, 09:19

If we wanted to make an amendmant to change it:

Amendment to add to Article II subsection 2-I:

(h) In the event a Minister and his announced delegate(s) are absent from an agreed, announced turnchat the president will assume that ministers duties for the duration of the turnchat.

H Tower · February 9, 2003, 10:33

i think that the minister is responsible for picking a delegate who is familar with the decision. That's why we made this section, the president appointing just some random person to be delegate in place of the missing minister is just like letting the president play on his own. And notice I said the minister must appoint someone familar with the situation. For instance, let's say IW was the minister, and he had to leave the chat, he shouldn't just appoint a random person in the chat to be his delegate, they have no idea what's going on, and cannot skillfully fullfill his duties as a delegate.

Which brings up the point of delegates being somewhat more than just a random person named by the minister. I believe the delegate should deeply involve himself or herself in the ministry they are a delegate in.

I know the above paragraph isn't exactly written into the CON, but I believe that it should be the hallmark of a responsible minister to make sure that an "expert" from his ministry there to represent it.

There is of course, a loophole, albiet a small one. If a minister knows he will be unable to make a turn chat, he can publicly post a set of orders for the president to use dring the chat. The only problem is that once those orders runout, and a new situation for the ministry arises, the turn chat must end because then the Pres will be playing without orders. This would at least let a few turns be played at every turn chat, assuming that the ministers don't drop the ball.

Quote:

(c) The President must follow the instructions of the Court, the Ministers and their delegates while playing the game and doesn't hold any veto powers unless specifically named in the constitution. If an instruction is clearly erroneous, or by changed circumstances made impossible or harmful the President may decide in the best interest of the game.

Notice how it doesn't say the minister is required to be in the chat, but only a vague refrence to missing orders. A detailed report made beforehand would suffice, for a while.

Pedrunn · February 9, 2003, 11:48

Ok, but what if Wise Ass gave me the guide lines and was absent during the chat.

Could i nominate a delegate just for the chat????

Tamerlin · February 9, 2003, 15:53

I agree with Medio's proposal, this simple amendment would ensure the continuity of the chats and cut through any useless loss of time.

H Tower · February 9, 2003, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Ok, but what if Wise Ass gave me the guide lines and was absent during the chat.

Could i nominate a delegate just for the chat????

You don't need the minister to be present,just a set of orders, I am against allowingt he president to select a delegate for an absent minister, and I'll vote against any amendment that allows you to perform such an action.

mapfi · February 9, 2003, 20:04

2nd HT here - such an amendment would pervert our democracy. Imagine a house where the leader appoints a replacement for every member who doesn't show up...
The pres doesn't get elected for choosing delegates, that's one of the ministers' jobs.

And Pedrunn, if you find it too much trouble to read up Wise Ass's guidelines you can certainly ask someone in the chat to relay them for you, but that's not a delegate.

Gilgamensch · February 10, 2003, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by medio
If we wanted to make an amendmant to change it:

Amendment to add to Article II subsection 2-I:

(h) In the event a Minister and his announced delegate(s) are absent from an agreed, announced turnchat the president will assume that ministers duties for the duration of the turnchat.

No way, I would support something like that.........

It would leave a big loopwhole for wrong handling.

Imagine the President announces a turnchat, no instructions beforehand, and he can do what he wants, THAT would be a normal SG instead of a DG.

Gilgamensch · February 10, 2003, 05:34

My point of view:

If there are no instructions and no delegate:

Stop playing and put an article in our Press. Might help

Both of them could have had a good reason to disappear, but also to keep in mind only the person holding the office can nominate a delegate and not the delegate another one.

(by the way, sounds like real Democracy, no-one shows up, when they are supposed to show up, just when they have to increase theiir salary, they'll make sure to be there

)

child of Thor · February 10, 2003, 08:37

Its difficult, i think the worst thing is if you have to abandon an organised chat because of lack of orders. I think maybe if all orders are given by all ministers well before the chat and game playing goes ahead, this might be best. Then the president can keep these orders to hand as the game goes ahead. If a minister isn't present or the orders don't fit the situation, then a show of hands during the chat should pass as a poll and it's upto those not present to be present next time?
Harsh maybe but atleast it will keep things going and get more people to commit to the important part of this DG - the actual in game decisions?

Pedrunn · February 10, 2003, 09:11

There is only one thing that makes thing even more dusty and unclear.

I dont have to make a Game Chat!

I can play on my on. I am just doing those chat beacuse i want to and to increase the level of popularity (Read this word as I wanting to make the people happy and not a search for votes).
Since this way I make the people more involved with the DG.

So if i knew the decision of Wise Ass couldnt i make the game chat with my decisions based on Wise Ass guidelines. After all i clearly could in case i played it on my own.
He did gave some of his thoughts and even guidelines in other threads.

So if i could play the game on my own using Wise Ass gidelines, couldnt i during a game chat nominate someone to look after these guidelines and of course read/interpret it for me since this would take much of my time.
Therefore i would nominate someone who will have the same functions of the MoDA during the game chat and how is that different from a delegate

So should we make a difference between Playing on my own X Game chat????

Or should the game chat only be a decision of mine to play on my on consulting the community?

I want to clarify these thing I am really confused

Gilgamensch · February 10, 2003, 09:13

CoT,

worst case scenario:

Only the Pres. or his delegate shows up.........

how do you decide now? He'll continue and decide on his own???????????????

mapfi · February 10, 2003, 09:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Pedrunn
So if i could play the game on my own using Wise Ass gidelines, couldnt i during a game chat nominate someone to look after these guidelines and of course read/interpret it for me since this would take much of my time.
Therefore i would nominate someone who will have the same functions of the MoDA during the game chat and how is that different from a delegate

A delegate has the power to decide, e.g. if he doesn't have minister orders he can play on with you indefinetly. Appointing someone to read Wise Ass's orders and to tell them to you when it is time is fine. But there shouldn't be much interpretation and certainly no invention of orders. That's very different from a delegate.

Gilgamensch · February 10, 2003, 09:58

Pedrunn,

Quote:

(b) The President is encouraged to use turnchats, turnthreads, or any other similar method while playing the game.

That is what is in the connie regarding how to play.........

Quote:

(c) The President must follow the instructions of the Court, the Ministers and their delegates while playing the game and doesn't hold any veto powers unless specifically named in the constitution. If an instruction is clearly erroneous, or by changed circumstances made impossible or harmful the President may decide in the best interest of the game.
(d) In case of missing orders for a whole turn from a minister and all his delegates the President may not play on.

It is not completly clear. As Pedrunn did, he decided in the best interest of the game, but (d) says, he should have stopped.

It is a tricky one, but the 'fault' is on he minister and Pedrunn just decided in the best interest of the game.

Doesn't mean it should get the normal situation, though.........

mapfi · February 10, 2003, 10:11

hey hey, c) is only a sentence that gives the pres the power to change given ministers' orders if they or their delegates aren't around. It's not about missing orders. That is d) and it keeps the pres from playing on without orders,
but if Wise Ass were to say we build hoplites and archers for the next 30 turns, then Pedrunn could decide where and when he builds them and play 30 turns, but he couldn't decide to build a settler or play 31 turns.
If Turambar were to post a plan how to attack Austria and on its way the stack encountered a single unit, then the Pres could decide to attack that one inbetween,
or if Tur said move east but actually it should be west the Pres can make it right too.
All this provided that the Pres has got a set of orders but has no immeadiate contact with the mister or his delegates.

Gilgamensch · February 10, 2003, 11:33

Mapfi,

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I was also trying to defend our President. It wasn't really his fault.........

He should have stopped, mentioned it earlier, but as the rest was still there, they decided to go on.

I think everyone holding an office should take it more 'serious'. As mentioned in the turn-chat threat (TBD), I am missing a lot of information from the 'officers'.

H Tower · February 10, 2003, 14:07

I'm certainly not saying prosecute Pedrunn, this time. but if he continues his actions in the future, I will file suit. Having someone read Wiseass' orders is very different from having an official delegate IMO

Gilgamensch · February 11, 2003, 04:24

That's my opinion as well, let it go this time and everybody should take this as a warning

Gilgamensch · February 11, 2003, 04:31

DL, seem to have problems in the moment

child of Thor · February 11, 2003, 15:17

I understand a bit better now, sooooo........does Pedrunn(or his delegate) have all the orders from the relevent ministers for tonights playing?