Discussion about the New Constitution

[Reddawg]

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.

[UnOrthOdOx]

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?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Another question:

What is the reasoning for appointing the VP?

What is wrong with a simple vote?

[Hot Mustard]

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.

[Thud]

The Big Book Of Points I Agree With

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.

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.

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.

[Togas]

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.

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.

(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

[Thud]

Points I Disagree With

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.

[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.

[Thud]

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.

[Thud]

Unortho, I also beleive that all Ministers (as defined in constitution) should be elected.

[Reddawg]

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

[Hot Mustard]

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.

[adaMada]

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.

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...

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.

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 .

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

[Togas]

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

[adaMada]

Re: The Big Book Of Points I Agree With

On Money:

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.

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 .

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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 ).

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?

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