First Proposal for UN Constitution

[AdamTG02]

I like the term limits idea as concisely stated by Leland.

Crisler, while I personally would agree with you on putting something against atrocities in the Constitution (after all, we are the UN Peacekeepers), it's clear that the majority is against that. Ultimately, however, continuing the majority against atrocities -- as we have right now -- is the only way to ensure that they won't be committed.

[MrWhereItsAt]

As veteran of two other Demo games here, I hope my experiences will be listened to:

Term limits
A nice idea, but soon enough we will have a serious problem finding willing candidates. In the Civ3 game we are near to electing our SMC for the third time in a row; after this he is restricted from that position for the next term. However, no-one wants to take his place, so I am proposing what we adpoted in the Civ2 game: No candidate may be elected for a certain position/any position more than xxx times consecutively unless there are no alternative candidates. This way we preferentially get the new guy in, but in the case of not having any such guy, we can actually keep playing. I think this would work here, and is better than the Commissioner having to delegate, or the VP taking over that position, which are alternatives.

UN Charter
We will be the UN (IIRC) and thus why don't we have a no atrocities policy in the Constitution? We just need a provision for changing such things (eg 2/3 majority vote in an official poll), so we can, if we need to, change if there is some certain Hive that needs to be smite down.

Playing ahead
This should be classes as actually doing something like move a unit or end turn. Anything involving simple information gathering like checking potential base production rearrangements or messing with SE settings should be OK, so longa s you don't leave anything changed irreversibly (eg losing the gold due to a SE change). This allows Ministers to do their jobs and give everyone the best info possible

Crisler - I don't like the idea of political parties even being given a mention. We shouldn't bar them from existing or bar them from tabling a candidate after they have just had a Commissioner, we just shouldn't acknowledge their existence at all. They seem to become much less important as time goes on. Also, I would see that the natural state of things is for a citizen to become a Minister once or twice and then become Commissioner once they have their feet wet. I would bitterly oppose any restriction on what someone could run for beyond term limits. The one exception is your "if they have been a Minister twice, the only candidacy they have is for the Commissionership". I like that one.

Off to Uni - let me know what you think of these, and ask questions of what has happened in the other games so far re: these matters or any others. I have been present for both of them the whole way through.

[AdamTG02]

No candidate may be elected for a certain position/any position more than xxx times consecutively unless there are no alternative candidates.

Makes sense.

Crisler - I don't like the idea of political parties even being given a mention. We shouldn't bar them from existing or bar them from tabling a candidate after they have just had a Commissioner, we just shouldn't acknowledge their existence at all. They seem to become much less important as time goes on. Also, I would see that the natural state of things is for a citizen to become a Minister once or twice and then become Commissioner once they have their feet wet. I would bitterly oppose any restriction on what someone could run for beyond term limits. The one exception is your "if they have been a Minister twice, the only candidacy they have is for the Commissionership". I like that one.

I fully agree. A person shouldn't be barred from running simply because they happen to belong to the same party as the last person to hold that job. Even within a party, there's a lot of room for differences of opinion. What this might lead to is some people quitting their parties because they wouldn't be eligible to run for the position they wanted if they had stayed in.

We will be the UN (IIRC) and thus why don't we have a no atrocities policy in the Constitution? We just need a provision for changing such things (eg 2/3 majority vote in an official poll), so we can, if we need to, change if there is some certain Hive that needs to be smite down.

Sounds like there might be some amount of support for putting an anti-atrocity provision in. Do you all think that it's worth posting a poll on the issue?

[GePap]

I say NO to any type of term limit whatsoever (preferential rues for new guys, as MWIA suggested are a different matter): term limits are a way of saying that the elctorate (us) can't be tursted, is lazy, is stupid, is incapable, is unenergetic, so forth, enough to keep the smae people for ever without question. It also brings up the issue of the best person: what iof we elect the best perso for a position, period? should not the person that has proven, by service, that they are very good, stay there as long as no one else proves, by argument or service, that they are capable of holding the job?

Term limits are as undemocratic a law as there is, and they should not be in the constitution.

As for mentioning the charter in the constitution, we shoul probably limit any mention of it to what type of vote would be needed to tamper with it, and not ban commiting attrocities- one whould hope we would do other dem games in the future, and we might not always be peacekeepers.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Good post Gepap. I always enjoy the challenge of responding to well-written intelligent posts that oppose my own.

The argument for term limits is less one about lessening candidates' hold on the game over consecutive elections and more about creating opportunities for ALL citizens to participate. We may start off with a kick-ass Director of Base Production, Commissioner, and 2-3 other candidates, and we want to keep them in. But this isn't fair on anyone else who wants to have a go at their position. The best person for the job should most definitely NOT get the job for as long as they want, or even as long as they are wanted. We are not here purely to win, we are here to get as many people involved as possible, and thus as many people as possible having fun. We can't lose sight of that for the sake of an efficient victory.

I will certainly vote for the poster I think is the best for the job, but they shouldn't be allowed to stay in their position beyond term limits, which we must enact. The one exception is where no-one else wants the job as I have mentioned. Our priorities are

1. get involved, let others get involved, and have fun; and THEN
2. aim to win

The win should not be our top priority. If it was, why do we need to do it as a group? There is always your own single player AC for that.

[Pandemoniak]

I agree wigh GePap, there shouldn't be any term limits. It restrains a lot of fun for everyone too : if one of us is a good enough politician and can get elected for the whole game, good for him. It is part of the democracy game to take a director seat/commissionner seat and stay on it as long as possible. For people who havent been director/commissioner before, if they make a good campaign, they are simply able to get the seat.

As MWIA said, we're not here to win the game but to have fun, and in a SP game, I have no trouble to stay faction leader for the whole game. It becomes far funnier when you CAN stay Faction Leader (or Director) but that you have to manage your duty and your citizens and your campaign in order to keep your seat.

For the Atrocity, Id prefer we write and sign a Delcaration og Human Rights on Planet, where we would state we refuse atrocities, Thought Control SE, etc...

[DeathByTheSword]

about the ban on atrocities In the game there is already an ban on using them: the UN charter. just leave like that and if some of the AI-players wants to change it. THEN we ask our citizens what they want. but not put it in the constitution we would make the first step away from a democracy....

[gopher]

Point of order, Mr. Chairman!

I propose we have an amendment about Campaign Finance Reform. I hear the p4's have a warchest of 40 cents, which is 37 cents more than their main opposition, ACE. When you get down to it, this money corrupts the system.

[Crisler]

Thanks to a generous donation from the Captialist Party the Fundamentalist Faction now sports a war chest of $5.00, blowing past the other partys for the largest war chest :-)

E.L. Crisler
First Commissioner

[Method]

@ gopher and crisler

[FlameFlash]

Since term limits seem to be the only seriously mentioned part of the constitution so far I'd like to see us try and get back on track.

Some good ideas have been mentioned, especially between MrWhereItsAt & GePap.

How about a compromise between the two?

Certainly there needs to be the opportunity for everybody to hold every position (OOC) after all this is just a game(/OOC) however when the people require stable leadership, through times of war, for instance, leadership in at least US history has remained in place even though the President went past the two term traditional limit.

Of course, we also have to remember that the provision wasn't even instated until after somebody stayed in for more than two terms. Why not follow what worked within history? Follow GePap's advice and trust the People for now (both the canidates and the normal citizens), however if we see that one canidate sits in a commissioner seat or director seat for too long (more than the traditional two terms) we can then address the issue of stopping it then.

[Maniac]

I second FlameFlash. That could give some nice political manoeuvring when one party tries to get an upper limit for terms because the rival candidate always wins. The other party of course wouldn't want the limit.

[DeathByTheSword]

When can we aspect the first result of the committee? (maybe a post of some resolved issues (asoon as you have come togather ofcourse )

[FlameFlash]

I have no idea DBTS...

Though we have a seconding for my compromise nobody else has of yet come in to either agree or disagree to it.

[Gnool]

Just a question, how long (how many turns) is a term?