UN Constitution

[DeathByTheSword]

and here it is sorry!

[Zakharov VII]

A rather small matter, Leland proposes that "The Director of Exploration and Intelligence should also have control over scout rovers and patrols (in other words, any military units that have 1/1/* stats and no special abilities). " I think this is a bit too limiting, especially since 1/1/1t is the same price as 1/1/1 (IIRC). Depending on how fast we get Secrets, this may or may not be an issue.

Also, as far as I know (I've read Juliennew's version fairly carefully), there is very little (no?) mention of native life. Who determines whether to make an aggressive strike on nearby mind worms, or let them kill themselves on the Trance unit in the base? This issue seems to involve the security of the faction, so then the Director of PO. But also the D of E&T, due to the danger posed to terraforming (at least, IIRC, mindworms can destroy improvements?). And what about the D of I&E, since striking a mindworm results in a boost to the treasury (which can be signifigant early on). And what if a scout comes across a mindworm? The D of I&E might push for a strike, for some EC's, while the D of E&I might not want to risk the scout and thus might want to flee.

Does the Commissioner make these final decisions, or is there enough material to justify a Director of Planet, handling pollution, suggesting some terraforming, suggesting building of Centauri Preserves, Temples of Planet, Biology Labs, Tree Farms, and Hybrid Forests (with other Directors probably suggesting Farms/Forests too), suggesting the building of psi units (Trance/Empath early on, then Mindworms etc), suggesting the building of Planet/Psi Secret Projects, and making the final decision on Mindworm strikes? Sounds like a lot of suggesting.

Anyway, I'm new to these Democracy games, so maybe there's a simple solution to what I've brought up .

Z

[DeathByTheSword]

I suggetesd that the D of E and I controls every action of his/her scouts...i have put in the 'updated' constitution that the D of E and can request any unit as exploration. I think if you leave every think to the DEI it will be good. if the D of moneythingy want planetpearls then he can request attacking the mindworms by the DEI or DD with special units

[Darkness' Edge]

I can't read that revision until I get home, as I'm in an internet cafe.

I'd still like to see the language simplified, so that each director has an explicit portfolio, with no consultations with other directors, and language forcing the directors to poll the people instead of going off and acting on their own whims.

[Leland]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
I'd still like to see the language simplified, so that each director has an explicit portfolio, with no consultations with other directors, and language forcing the directors to poll the people instead of going off and acting on their own whims.

I agree on the former, disagree on the latter account. I think that the Directors should have the power to decide whether to poll stuff or not, I cannot see any easy way to force polls (because then you'd have to specify what kind of polls, and it gets very convoluted). It could be in the constitution that the directors have to "consult with the people" or something (maybe it's already in there, I don't remember), but I don't think there should be anything about polling (except in cases of impeachment and elections).

[Zakharov VII]

Isn't the "threat" of the citizens' discontent powerful enough to make the Directors poll the people? I think that since the people have the power to elect (and impeach) them, the Directors should be strongly motivated to make sure they're happy.

Perhaps, in the Bill of Rights, a declaration of the people's right to influence (sounds shady ) the Directors' decision making? Thus giving good grounds for an impeachment of the Director who fails to consult the people.

This assumes, however, that there would be enough plain old citizens (with no office - like me, I don't plan to run for anything, but then again I don't expect to be inactive) who still want to participate.

Also, all citizens have the right to hold unofficial polls, right?

Z

[Leland]

Originally posted by Zakharov VII
Isn't the "threat" of the citizens' discontent powerful enough to make the Directors poll the people? I think that since the people have the power to elect (and impeach) them, the Directors should be strongly motivated to make sure they're happy.

Yup, that's the reason why I think the constitution does not have to force Directors to poll anyone.

Also, all citizens have the right to hold unofficial polls, right?

That's something worth mentioning... for example, if a director tries to weasel out of polling people so that he can make an unpopular decision, someone else might make the poll (the Director's political opponents, perhaps?)...

[Zakharov VII]

Exactly as I was thinking, about the polling. Either an opponent, or perhaps a citizen who prefers not to align himself with a politcal party and to remain just a citizen ?

It seems like the Director better listen to the results of this unofficial poll, if it's popular enough (just what is that in the Constitution where it says unofficial polls "CANNOT" be used to make official decisions?), then start polls of his/her own, or all the people voting in the unofficial poll may soon be voting in anothing "impeachment" poll .

Now, I'm a little unsure how this works. Say the D of R, say, polls the people and the people decide to research Social Psych. If the D of R then requests that the Comissioner researches Information Networks, what is the Comissioner obliged to do? Listen to the people, and research Psych, or listen to the Director, and research InfoNets?

If it's up to his/her judgement, what happens when the people find out Information Networks is being researched? How do we know if the D of R didn't listen to the people, or if the Comissioner didn't listen to the D of R (and the people)?

It seems to me that in this "government" of ours (and I think Brother Lal even has something to say on this matter), the people have to know everything that is going on. And I think some things should be formalized, such as how the Director conveys his wishes to the Comissioner. I have no idea what turnchats/turnthreads are, so perhaps an explanation of that would help, but until I get one, I may as well finish. Reports from Director to Comissioner should be public. The D of R, in that last case, has every right to suggest Information Networks, but the Director should be responsible for giving (and explaining, which might be wise) this decision in a public post. The people, then, have every right to take action if a pattern of disobedience continues.

I don't believe in the Comissioner having too much power, in fact, if I had my way (not likely to happen), the Comissioner would be one of the weakest positions, being just a puppet with each Director grabbing one string (ooh, funny image ). Perhaps there should be a formal method for disobeying his/her Directors (the Comissioner starts a poll on the matter, and if the people vote, needing 3/4). I feel that if the D of R suggests Information Networks in my example, he/she should do it with the knowledge that the people may be angry, but also that the Comissioner is bound to listen to him/her. As weird/unpopular as it sounds, I don't think the Comissioner should "generally check with the people" (at least not often) before playing, as the Constitution states. However, somehow, the Comissioner must be protected from any resentment this would cause, without having to put up a poll whenever the popular opinion is crossed.

What I'm thinking for that Comissioner's impeachment needs 2/3 the popular vote and a majority of the Director's votes (with the Directors voting in secret), or unanimous (or all but one, so the people never know exactly how the vote was) vote of the Directors. Then, if the Comissioner always listens to the Directors, he/she may not be reelected, but the Directors should be happy with him/her (they vote in secret, so no fear of the public if a Director votes to keep a Comissioner that the public doesn't want). If the Comissioner always wants a poll whenever the people disagree with a Director, then that impeachment by the Director's vote could be feasable.

Anyways, this is by no means an optimal way of working some things, but it's the best I can think of.

Z

[DeathByTheSword]

I havent read you whole post but i think that the Commissioner has to do what the director says and only when in a situation not foreseen (in the middle of a turn) may the Commissioner work on his own jugment.