Part Deux: Constitution?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Options:

Keep the current Constitution: NewCon
Write a new detailed constitution (as detailed as current constitution, but 'fixing' things)
Write a new basic constitution (give some details as to what Govt officials cannot do, set up court)
Only outline Govt positions, elections, and polls (No court, impeachments and conflicts handled strictly by a public poll)
No Constitution (Anarchy!!!)
Banana

[UnOrthOdOx]

My personal opinion is if you want a detailed constitution, keep the current one. We can fix it with Bills if need be.

I, however, lean towards only an outline.

[Aidun]

Vote change and some thoughts

Ow I just saw I voted wrong, please consider my vote as +1 for the New detailed constitution and -1 for the New basic Constitution.

Please think about the folowing things:

• Do we want to lay power in hands of a President or Prime Minister or Chancellor or perhaps even a King?
• Do we want a republic + parliamentiary democracy (USA, Germany, France, Brazil) or a constitutional monarchy + parliamentary democracy (England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden)
• What powers do we want to give to the head of state (President or King)?
• (eventual) what powers do we want to give to the Prime Minister or Chancellor
• What powers do we want to give to the court?
• Do we want an impeachment procedure = court procedure, or no-confidence vote = parliamentary procedure.
• Do we prefer that all members of the game form the parliament or rather a select groop that is chosen by the members of the game? (Direct or indirect democracy)
• Do we want to choose every minister seperalely or let the Prime Minister/Chancellor/President or even King appoint ministers for the cabinet?

It's all not so self-evident as you think.

Aidun

[Sheik]

Anarchy, seriously

[UnOrthOdOx]

IMO a simple outline allows for greater flexibility. It does not tell the ministers how to manage their deputies/assistants. It only states how the govt is to be comprised and when the elections are held.

It would be designed to change govt makeup on the fly with a simple poll, to remove an official with a poll, and could even force officials to follow polls. This will allow for multiple forms of govt, perhaps even RP the govt according to the game. Change on the fly with few as possible restrictions.

[MrWhereItsAt]

At present we have 33 members, a lot fewer than the anarchic times of the first game. We know what works, and what needs to be controlled. From what I have seen, the only things we need to have in a "Constitution" are;

1. Standard format for polls (eg no opinions first post, abstain etc options, standard length of time)

2. Outlining the responsibilities of the Government officials. IMO they should be allowed to deputise in case of RL unavailability, and an emphasis placed on working with other Ministers where their areas of interest collide.

3. Several Judges to rule on any disputes. They will do this in relation to trying to progress the game as much as possible whilst following orders and majority opinions of the people.


I would like to see more a page of broad agreements that we reach amongst ourselves, which are open to debate, than any strict rules. We had few impeachments last game, but many situations that could have ended with them. Fortunately the Judges were reasonable and aimed to keep the game moving rather than enforce our laws strictly. I would like to see the practical reality reflected in the document to be enforced in theory.

I guess this means I would like to see a Basic outline, but a Court established to judge in case of disputes, so I will vote for the basic Consitution idea.

[Aidun]

But do you agree with me that a little bit of creativity doesn't harm the game?

Lets for instance have a King who monthly or once in two or three months appoints his decendant who becomes king. So a 1, 2 or three monthly cycle.

The Prime Minister is being elected and holds a power that is similar to that of a President. The rest of the cabinet is elected too.

The King appoints Judges (King is independant and can appoint Judges without any political preferrence).

The King finally installs the cabinet after the parliament has approved it.

The King cannot be impeached, but urged to abdicate from the throne with a threat of revolt.

What would you think of this? little rules, works easy, with a nice part of RP for the RP-ers and 100% democratic, with an objective, independent Justice

Aidun

[E_T]

The New Con did fix a lot of things, but it also created some new problems. If we go a route where we want a newer constitution, we should look at some of the good and bad things for what to keep and what to throw away.

I'm not going to vote yet, I want to see what other have to say about this before I vote.

E_T

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Aidun
But do you agree with me that a little bit of creativity doesn't harm the game?

Lets for instance have a King who monthly or once in two or three months appoints his decendant who becomes king. So a 1, 2 or three monthly cycle.

The Prime Minister is being elected and holds a power that is similar to that of a President. The rest of the cabinet is elected too.

The King appoints judges (King is independant and can appoint Judjes without any political preferrence).

The King finally installs the cabinet after the parliament has approved it.

The King cannot be impeached, but urged to abdicate from the throne with a threat of revolt.

What would you think of this? little rules, works easy, with a nice part of RP for the RP-ers and 100% democratic, with an objective, independent Justice

Aidun

Who is playing the game?

If you go with kings, we should try for something similar to the GoW idea that we had in the beginning.

King plays the game. Each citizen (likely a group of 4-5 for this at least in the beginning) gets a city, builds and controls the units from that city unless the king needs them for matters of the state. Virtual wars can even be played out with the different factions/regents.

If one of the Regents gains enough support (lots of ways to influence this) he can attempt to overthrow the King.

However, this is all beyond the point of this poll.

Do you need a highly structured document defining each and every process in full detail?

Or is it just easy to say IN GAME we hold elections the 15th of each month for 5 days.

There is a Pres/equivalent to play the game

A vice to back him up

a general in charge of the military

a diplomat in charge of Foreign Relations

One or more positions in charge of Cities, settlers and workers.

These guys can choose to have assistants as they see fit.

There is a court for disputes

We choose judges in X fashion

Great Leaders must be voted on before used

War must be voted on before declared

Peace must be voted on before declared

Any poll passed by more than 50% of the Public must be followed by the officials.

have fun.


Roleplaying will not be included in the Constitution because it should be optional, therefore made into a seperate document.

[Kloreep]

I feel we need at least some basic standards (elections, the court, official polls, and some rules relating to the game with GLs and such). So we need some basic document. Reading the first post, it looks like that would fall under "detailed" in this case, so that's what I vote for.

[GodKing]

the existing con is good, and well known, so I say stick with it.

[Aidun]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Who is playing the game?

If you go with kings, we should try for something similar to the GoW idea that we had in the beginning.

King plays the game. Each citizen (likely a group of 4-5 for this at least in the beginning) gets a city, builds and controls the units from that city unless the king needs them for matters of the state. Virtual wars can even be played out with the different factions/regents.

If one of the Regents gains enough support (lots of ways to influence this) he can attempt to overthrow the King.

I don't think it would be effective to let groops of people govern the cities. This is but the general idea of the Citystates Game: little groops of people wo govern 1 to 3 cities.
In this game I'm in favor for a central led country, if you want to go federal, sign up for the Citystates Game.

We needn't to let the King play the game, it can also be done by the Prime Minister. It deopends on how many power the citizens want to lay in the hands of the King.
Of couse this also counts for a republic: how many power do the citizens want to lay in the hands of a President? The power of the President can be limited by having a Prime Minister or a Chancellor. ( there is but very little difference between the PM and the Chancellor)

However, this is all beyond the point of this poll.

I don't agree with that: if we want change something, that has to be doen now and not when the game has already started. These questions, thoughts are relevant for the option you choose in the poll.

Roleplaying will not be included in the Constitution because it should be optional, therefore made into a seperate document.

The roleplay is inherent to the King: if we chhose to have a King as Head of State in this game, that will alsmost automatically mean some roleplay, it is however up to the idividual member to join in that roleplay or be solely involved with playing the game: the technical part.

Aidun

[mjmacy]

How do I join the team?

[Aro]

Originally posted by mjmacy
How do I join the team?

Here.

[Aidun]

Mjmacy,

Welcome! You can join by signing up here for Single Player DemoGame nr. 2 and here for the Citystates Game.

Aidun