Poll -- Would you Ratify the New Con?

[Togas]

First off, we have been made aware of a grammar error and an ambigious phrase or two in Art I that are going to be fixed. There may be a few minor clarifications as well.

This poll is asking if you would ratify the New Constitution as it is currently written (with minor fixes that do not affect content).

If you would not ratify it, we need to know why. Please post below.

This poll is unofficial, but very useful to those of us on the Constitution Convention.

This poll will last 3 days.

--Togas, Secretary of the C.C.

[adaMada]

I'm strongly in support of the Con Con in its current form.

As Togas has pointed out, there are clearly one or two minor fixes (that perserve the original intent and powers) to be made, but that can be delt with by the Con Con. Besides that, can we just let the thing go through? Personally, I understand that not everyone agrees on everything, but I think it's a solid document that addresses most concerns, and we CAN'T put out something that everyone'll like. No way it'll happen . As such, we've gotta ask you to understand that each of us have made compromises in writing this document and you may have to consider others points and the eventual affect on the game as well, in deciding if a given issue is worth striking the whole Constitution for.

Everyone, please do consider and vote wisely on this poll -- this will affect the Con Con's course of action, and its important we have a solid feeling for the public's thoughts before we see where we're going to go.

-- adaMada

EDIT: OPD/MWIA, can we get this topped?

[Donegeal]

I look at this issue from a perspective of an unelected official who was selected by a minister with the onset of his tenure in office. I have come to the conclusion that under the current CoL, I have no power what-so-ever other than a normal citizen. All I do is come up with plans for the cities in my province to include WF allocation, building, defense, "Q's" and PW. I take these plans and post them on the Piña Colada thread and tell the CP to check them out. The CP does not have to accept the orders or even look at them. It his choice. I just help to aleviate the burden a little. In the NewCon, there would be no change. I will continue to create plans and post what I think should happen and refer what ever Minister to the post. I also feel, that as I am not an elected official, nor any of my suggestion have any more weight than just being good ideas, that the NewCon could do nothing to prevent me from continuing in this fashion (short of banning me altogether).

So, in short (too late), my official stance is that it is a well written document that is very conceice and to the point, but does not effect my way of playing so I will probably abstain.

The writters should all be commended on there fabulous efforts.

[notyoueither]

Are you sure about that donegeal?

As things stand you have zero official standing in the game. If it ever became an issue during a turn chat, I am not sure where the court would go. We have not yet been tested on the issue. However, it is a very real possibility that your words in a chat could be made the same as any other citizen.

Under the NewCon, you have official status. You are given responsibilities by your minister. The only way to over rule you would be by the decision of your minister, or by some act of the Senate (perhaps) or order of the Court.

Furthermore, in situations where the minister is absent from a chat, the Vice minister posesses all of his authority. For instance, you may remember that incident where Togas was absent and peace with France was made. Had Togas' vice minister been there under the NewCon, there would have been no question about who had the authority to authorise the peace.

Which do you prefer?

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Under the NewCon, you have official status. You are given responsibilities by your minister. The only way to over rule you would be by the decision of your minister, or by some act of the Senate (perhaps) or order of the Court.

Are you saying that if I get appointed a RA in the NewCon by a Minister, that that minister has to do what I say (even though he was the one who granted me the power?)? Or are you saying that if appointed and I post orders that are not commented on be the Minister that put me incharge, that they would then be official and must be followed?

As it stands, I know I have no official power, and I like it that way. All I want to do is put out suggestions and see if I can't convince people that I'm right. I don't want any official power. (no, this is not a reference to Shakespears play, Julious Ceaser)

[adaMada]

Originally posted by donegeal

Are you saying that if I get appointed a RA in the NewCon by a Minister, that that minister has to do what I say (even though he was the one who granted me the power?)? Or are you saying that if appointed and I post orders that are not commented on be the Minister that put me incharge, that they would then be official and must be followed?

The system is designed for flexibility.

Let's use this Term for example. GodKing has appointed you a Regional Administrator. What this means for you however, is up to GodKing -- he can officially grant you the power to give the orders or keep you as advisory role. Furthermore, the City Planner himself would only be a deputy of the Domestic Minister, and the Domestic Minister would need no City Planner if he didn't want one (and would have final say over the City Planner's appointments and delegation of powers -- the City Planner would really only be an organizer if it existed at all). Again, the base idea is that powers are granted to the highest level of government (elected Ministers), and then are delegated 'down' by those Ministers to their appointees/Deputies as they see fit. The elected Ministers are ultimatly responsible for the Deputies/Appointees actions (with the possible exception of the Vice President), but they have the power to delegate only what they feel is necessary to people they can trust.

As it stands, I know I have no official power, and I like it that way. All I want to do is put out suggestions and see if I can't convince people that I'm right. I don't want any official power. (no, this is not a reference to Shakespears play, Julious Ceaser)

Again, it's very flexible. If you don't want to give the orders, then the CP/Domestic Minister has no need to grant you the power -- rather, he can just turn around and use you as an advisory position .

-- adaMada

[notyoueither]

donegeal,

Your minister can over rule or replace you at any time. You serve at his pleasure.

Yes, your instructions would be official orders in the area your minister assigned you to. You could still post a proviso that the President could do otherwise if he sees fit.

Also, in a chat you would have the final say over what happens in your area of responsibility. Except for your minister, of course. He or she could still over rule you on the spot.

Also, some ministers may appoint you to simply advise him or her. Then you would not have the power to post orders yourself (they would be suggestions).

The point is that we have tried to erect a framework that will allow maximum flexibility with enough stability that this game, or any other can flourish.

A good general rule to go by is that if it does not say you cannot, then you can. So there is nothing preventing you from serving your minister in the same way you have served to date.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by notyoueither
...you may remember that incident where Togas was absent and peace with France was made

/me shudders

Please let's not bring that up on my first day back.

And I have to vote undecided - the NewCon has been up for, what a day and a half? I haven't nearly had the time to read both the NewCon thread and all the discussion yet!

[GodKing]

If I had to vote now... NO. Simply because I have not had the time to thouroughly read, let alone digest, this document.

On quick exam, it appears OK. I agree with what I have seen unortho saying regarding abstains.... but that I think can be minor.

One issue I have been thinking of... how many "official" people are on the roster? Anybody and everybody who has signed up since term 1. Over 300 by now I would guess. Yet we get how many in a typical election? 50 is a good turn out. We should either get rid of the whole sign up thing, or have a method of re-signing up every month, to determine who is a citizen/senator.....

OK. Enough rambling. I will make inteligent comments later once I get the chance to read it over.

GK

[Sheik]

I have read it fairly thouroughly. As a judge I think that this clears up a lot of things and eliminates a lot of confusion. The Quorum thing is interesting and I am not sure if I agree with it. Although if I had to vote right now I would probably vote Yes because what the citizens dont like they can change at anytime.

[CiverDan]

We need with some way of determining who is currently an active participant if we are to have a quorom requirement. How many people have signed up and then stopped participating temporarily or permanently for one reason or another, or just don't do elections? I'm sure quite a few, judging from Godking's comments. As written, we need 2/3 citizen majority for amendment. With 338 listed citizens that means 254 yes votes are required. If at some point >1/3 of the "citizens" aren't participating it will be impossible to pass any amendment including one to change the quorom. This would essentially then make it un-amendable

If we consider everyone who has signed up to be a citizen and >1/3 even now are not participating, it will be impossble to even ratify it. Maybe a poll to determine number of active members before attempted ratification.

This poll could even be written into the constitution with laguage like this..

"On the first of every month, a poll shall be conducted to determine the number of present citizens in Apolytonia. The poll shall be open for at least 5 days, but not more than 6. The number of responding citizens shall be used to determine the number of citizens neede for a quorom. The lack of any person's responce to such a poll, however, shall not by itself preclude that person from acting as citizen of Apolytonia again at any time, or preclude them from holding any position, current, or future"

[adaMada]

Originally posted by CiverDan
We need with some way of determining who is currently an active participant if we are to have a quorom requirement. How many people have signed up and then stopped participating temporarily or permanently for one reason or another, or just don't do elections? I'm sure quite a few, judging from Godking's comments. As written, we need 2/3 citizen majority for amendment. With 338 listed citizens that means 254 yes votes are required. If at some point >1/3 of the "citizens" aren't participating it will be impossible to pass any amendment including one to change the quorom. This would essentially then make it un-amendable

If we consider everyone who has signed up to be a citizen and >1/3 even now are not participating, it will be impossble to even ratify it. Maybe a poll to determine number of active members before attempted ratification.

This poll could even be written into the constitution with laguage like this..

"On the first of every month, a poll shall be conducted to determine the number of present citizens in Apolytonia. The poll shall be open for at least 5 days, but not more than 6. The number of responding citizens shall be used to determine the number of citizens neede for a quorom. The lack of any person's responce to such a poll, however, shall not by itself preclude that person from acting as citizen of Apolytonia again at any time, or preclude them from holding any position, current, or future"

We gave the senate the option of reastablishing the quorom if it becomes a problem. To be honest, I don't think it will be, but we did see that the system we proposed wasn't ideal, and (as such) gave the Senate the power to set it themselves if need exists. Furthermore, the quorom isn't 25% of the total citizens in the game -- it's 25% of the citizens who posted in the last election. Admittedly, this isn't the best indicator all the time, but it should work most of the time, and if it doesn't, the Senate can reset the quorom to something more reasonable .

-- adaMada

[Togas]

Originally posted by CiverDan
As written, we need 2/3 citizen majority for amendment. With 338 listed citizens that means 254 yes votes are required. If at some point >1/3 of the "citizens" aren't participating it will be impossible to pass any amendment including one to change the quorom. This would essentially then make it un-amendable

This is not exactly true. The meaning has always been 2/3rd of the citizens who voted, but I can see where there might be some confusion. That phrase will definately be fixed to better reflect our intent.

--Togas

[Apocalypse]

Besides fixing the constitution, I think your sig is broken Togas

[Trevman]

Probs with the new constitution:

4 The Senate has the power to declare war.

Shouldn't the SMC have to approve this or there be some sort of executive consent neccessary. It seems to me that the citizenry can declare war whenever and on whoever they choose despite the nation's preparedness or the minister's plans.

(a) Elections shall end 72 hours later on the 15th of every month.

Too short to insure that everyone gets a chance to vote.

Immediately after winning the election, the President-elect must appoint a Vice President.

I like to elect my vice-presidents.

Why have you combined the president and the economic minister? These are two very divergent roles. It just doesn't make sense.

Overall, not bad but still flawed.