Announcement

**UnOrthOdOx** · April 1, 2003, 08:12

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
UnOrthO - you have been managing, in far more eloquent ways, to argue more or less the case I would ideally like

Well, that IS my job, isn't it?

However, it is clear that many want at least some rules governing our little game.

I know, but it is only through presenting the extremes that a consensus can be achieved.

For another example of how well no rules can work, read the last few posts in the 'what version' poll. People governing themselves despite the lack of rules...amazing. And all the while having some lighthearted, yet interesting debate.

**Aidun** · April 1, 2003, 17:01

I strongly object no rules and let me show you why:

If we have no rules, this might happen:

ANY member can alter the save while he is not in the government;
Ministers can do that they like to do;
Pacts can be signed without the Senate having the power to object;
The Senate has no power at all, the government can simply ignore the senate;
The Senate can try to impeach the government, but the court has no power to remove them from office;
I doubt there will be a court at all!

THIS IS ANARCHY and that is the least I wish to happen.

Don't let it happen

Aidun

**Kuciwalker** · April 1, 2003, 21:49

Anarchy could be fun...

**UnOrthOdOx** · April 1, 2003, 23:26

Originally posted by Aidun
I strongly object no rules and let me show you why:

If we have no rules, this might happen:

ANY member can alter the save while he is not in the government;
Ministers can do that they like to do;
Pacts can be signed without the Senate having the power to object;
The Senate has no power at all, the government can simply ignore the senate;
The Senate can try to impeach the government, but the court has no power to remove them from office;
I doubt there will be a court at all!

THIS IS ANARCHY and that is the least I wish to happen.

Don't let it happen

Aidun

[edited your list for convenience, only added numbers]

What exactly prevented that in the last game? Certainly not the NewCon.
Is that such a bad thing?
You think a minister would truly do that against the will of the public? You think a President would follow orders against the will of the public?
Kinda like how the Ministers can overrule ANY bill the senate passed in the NewCon, huh?
Impeachments have never worked, yet, arguably have never needed them.
With all due respect to the judges...so?

If you have read my posts carefully, though, you would see I am promoting BASIC rules: No cheating, addressing #1, Ministers needing to follow polls, addressing #s 3 & 4, and perhaps a public trial that would speed an impeachment process by bypassing the need for a court (#s 5 & 6) in addition to such things as polling standards and election proceedings.

I DON'T see a need to list detailed instructions for how the President should play turns or how the Ministers choose to conduct thier office or organize their assistants, RGs, Generals, or any other creative name.

This is the last I am saying on the topic, if people want to list everything in detail and attempt to find a solution to every possible situation we will come upon, so be it.

**Aidun** · April 2, 2003, 09:30

Very well UnOrthOdOx, I missed the nuance in your proposal. After reading your last post above I think our opinions are not so far away from each other.

After a lsome of evenings thinking on this issue, I think it is indeed better to leave it up to the officials to choose a preferred structure, title, etc.

I myself would prefer to have elected deputyministers under me if I would become DM, is this possible?

I think it is good to have the basic rules you propose,

But:

The fact that ministers can overrule the senate on bills does mean that the Democracy game is not a democracy game, but a dictatorial game. The senate is a club of actors who like to imitate politicians and which needn't to be taken serious by the ministers.

UnOrthOdOx, why does it seem that you and many others seem to consider the NewCon as some HOLY DOCUMENT, while there are many, many faillures in it, of which I have given examples that you seem not to understand?
About impeachement, that is an example, I was talking about the court, not about impeachement. There should be a rule in the constitution that states how the court is organized and what right is has, otherwise the court can judje upon anything that she likes, will have no authority because the ministers can simply ignore it. The authority of the court and senate are examples of what NEEDS to be included in the constitution.

If we want to base our constitution on parts of the NewCon, we need first to take a VERY close and critical look at it to take away ANY undemocratic passages about the government and Senate and ANY passages that lead to an unobjective court.

Aidun

**UnOrthOdOx** · April 2, 2003, 10:15

Originally posted by Aidun
I myself would prefer to have elected deputyministers under me if I would become DM, is this possible?

If there is no rules written on how you run the DM, you could do as you please. However, if we wrote a rule stating that deputies had to be elected, or confirmed, it could become a problem for someone who wanted more freedom in choosing, or to run the office themselves. Allowing the Ministers to choose is important IMO.

UnOrthOdOx, why does it seem that you and many others seem to consider the NewCon as some HOLY DOCUMENT, while there are many, many faillures in it, of which I have given examples that you seem not to understand?

I am not trying to honor the document, but the months of work that several individuals put into constructing it. It IS a good document, but it attempts to list every problem we could face and ways to fix them, which is an inherent flaw, IMO. That also is exactly what we asked them to do. Lesson learned?

The Ministers overrule was intended for a situation where a bill would have caused harm or was obsolete due to situations arising in a chat. It, however, aslo allowed for ministers to abuse this power if they so chose. Probably would have been better to allow the Ministers to declare such a bill a state of emergency and have the public informed/repolled.

About impeachement, that is an example, I was talking about the court, not about impeachement. There should be a rule in the constitution that states how the court is organized and what right is has, otherwise the court can judje upon anything that she likes, will have no authority because the ministers can simply ignore it. The authority of the court and senate are examples of what NEEDS to be included in the constitution.

Having been involved in 3 of the court cases, I am not so sure that we actually NEED a court. There are pro's and con's. They have dealt fairly and unbias in all the cases I have had time to review, however it does take time as well. I think a process for a public hearing or trial may be a better solution, but perhaps I am being idealist in that thought as well, assuming most people would vote honestly and not along a party bias.

Is anyone attempting a rough draft?

I see this as the most likely holdup to starting the next game. Perhaps we need to break up this discussion into different areas:

Extremely rough outline, comment on specific additions or changes for sections

Govt Positions

Pres/King/Emperor/insert name - Plays the game/controls Leader movements if leader is acquired. Can use any means available to play the turns, Chats, threads, other.

VP/Consulate/insert name - Backs up Pres, assists any/all minister if needed

Ministers/whathaveyou:

Military - controls all units land, sea, air, other than workers/settlers/leaders

Foreign Affairs - controls all trades, must get approval for war, peace, RoP, MPP, and Alliances

Domestic - Controls workers, Settlers, and cities build ques/work force Allowed to alter the save to set up build ques and work forces prior to turns played by the pres/whatever?

Any minister can organize their office as they see fit, with assistants, polls, whatnot. (real official terminology here...)

All ministers must follow a poll by the citizens.

Citizens/senate/house of lords/peasants/whatever

Control the Slider, research, change of government, mobilization of economy, and use of leaders must approve declaring war, peace, MPP, RoP, or Alliance. Any Offcial poll/bill/law/decree/whatever polled upon and passed must be followed by the ministers as close as possible, understanding specifics may change with respect to specific orders or units.

Judges

Leave same as is, unless anyone has a better idea?

Official Polls/bills/laws/whatever

Pretty much same as is: Poll must have at least yes, no, abstain Open for at least 3 days.

Do we want a Repoll law? IE, no spamming of the same poll? This has pros and cons.

How will we count abstain? Yes, no, don't count it at all? Do we want to continue the minimum limit on polls?

Ok, I suck, now you know why I was not on the ConCon.

Any of that can be made to sound pretty later, what needs changed/added/thrown out?

**Aidun** · April 2, 2003, 10:42

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I am not trying to honor the document, but the months of work that several individuals put into constructing it. It IS a good document, but it attempts to list every problem we could face and ways to fix them, which is an inherent flaw, IMO. That also is exactly what we asked them to do. Lesson learned?

No I'll never learn this lesson UnOrthOdOx! Don't insult me like that!

The NewCon is a very good document and a very worthy piece of work. That does but not implicate that one might not have a critical look at it.

Aidun

**UnOrthOdOx** · April 2, 2003, 10:56

Aidun, I was not directing that at you or anyone in particular. I was just stating my own opinion. Why take it personally?

At any rate, wake me up when there is an actual document written and we can play the game. I never was one to enjoy this part, and apparantly I am only angering people which is the last thing I want. I can use my time better creating a website for the paper than discussing this.

**Nuclear Winter** · April 2, 2003, 15:41

A government without enough laws is lake a Dragon in a lake: He won´t go anywhere and his power will have no use; but a goverment with laws enough to work, yet without an excess of them is like a fierce tiger who has got wings, there will be no limitations for his arm.

**Aidun** · April 2, 2003, 15:58

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Lesson learned?

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Aidun, I was not directing that at you or anyone in particular. I was just stating my own opinion. Why take it personally?

UnOrthOdOx, I was stunned when I read that particular phrase (the first) in your post. I hoped you did not mean to insult, but the idea you did made me angry. I'm glad that we have no dispute because I hate having disputes.
Let's forget this all.

I'll give my comment when the final docment is proposed.

BTW, let me know if I can help you with the Gazette.

Aidun

**UnOrthOdOx** · April 2, 2003, 16:10

Originally posted by Aidun
I'll give my comment when the final docment is proposed.

Im not going forward with my outline unless I get feedback, there is no point spending an hour typing it up into a nice sounding thing if people don't like the general idea or already know they want more added to it.

BTW, let me know if I can help you with the Gazette.

Anyone is always free to help. I plan to get the basic site up this weekend (using the last Gazette as a template) and begin contests for things like a new name, letterhead, and anything else I can come up with or people suggest to me. Ill be giving credit to those who's pics I use of course, and could link to their website(s) if they have them.

Im looking into ways to allow some people access to help with layout and design as well. AOL seems to be a bit odd in that area...

**GodKing** · April 2, 2003, 17:15

AOL - odd..... hmmm..... never heard that before.

**UnOrthOdOx** · April 2, 2003, 17:24

Yes, yes...

It's an issue of allowing access to ONLY the webpage and not my entire account at this point, actually. I trust most of ya and all, just not with access to credit card #s.

Announcement

Pre-poll discussion: Design the New Constitution.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment