1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Town Square / Dgame Archive / Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread / Latest Posts

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Bismarck2990 — Mon, 28 May 2007 19:24:15 GMT

I agree.

Since I'm the one who brought it up, I'll be sure to submit my draft for review sometime tonight or tomorrow morning. I'm currently in class using one of their computers, so It'll probably be around 9 tonight (Eastern), before I can begin working on the draft.

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Scipio Africanus — Mon, 28 May 2007 17:51:34 GMT

I agree with your suggestions Comedy Dave, and would vote yes on such a matter. Sorry for my absence the past couple days, my internet has not been working the past couple days. But I think they got it fixed good now.

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Comedy Dave — Mon, 28 May 2007 00:24:15 GMT

You make some excellent points, Biz :)

Ok here's what I think should happen, based on our discussion:

- Senate does not need to be reduced to 3, but votes must have at least 3 senators vote on them. The majority is determined from votes polled, not total senators. We need to finalise Discussion, then constitution change required? Or would a senate article of law be sufficient here?

- President must request senate approval before continuing playing turns. This would allow for debate and give the senate a bit more power. (as per Biz's post) - We'd need a draft of how this would work - then senate vote. If the Supreme Court complains, we could get the people to vote on this too, and amend the constitution...

I would prefer a nice mix of speed and involvement. Too much bogging down in red tape will make people lose interest, but again we don't want the President to effectively become a Dictator.

Since not many of us have Warlord, that also makes things harder. No doubt warlords saves will not be usable in Beyond the sword, when it comes out, if Civ3 was anything to go by...

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Bismarck2990 — Sun, 27 May 2007 20:34:00 GMT

As much as I would... we face the realization that only 1 person in the entire senate actually owns Warlords. These positions would most likely require the actual CD installed and able to run (or forcing the president to make up for this fact by submitting extra screen shots and etc.), thus, I'm weary of pushing for expanding the senates powers in that aspect.

In the current, I would suggest we start by pushing for Legislation that requires the President to obtain the senate's authorization to play the next set of turns after each report. He will also include in this request what he exactly plans to do in regards to foreign, domestic, defensive/offensive, and build que. This will allow us to become more involved and able to object to what we may find as negative in our development.

Before we decide on which route we choose... we need to decide on this:

[center]Do we favor speed even if we become spectators?
- Or -
Do we favor involvment even if we slow the speed of the game?[/center]

---------------------------

The voting could be the exact reflection of what we do when the Princep puts up a vote for the senate. However, it would be done by the President and include his goals for the said set of turns.

* Note: I would strongly urge we push for limiting the workable size of the senate first. We should allow room to maintain the max size at 5 but allow it to still function with 3 minimal, IMO.

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Comedy Dave — Sun, 27 May 2007 19:26:13 GMT

I see your point, Biz. From my vague forays into reading how the DGame is going at Civilised, I do recall there were a number of different departments to deal with differing areas of the game. I haven't had the chance to go and read how they work in practice, does it slow down the game at all?

I suppose our current form of Government has allowed for a quick start to the game, and we are now heading into a period where more things are going on, and so there are more decisions to be made. I suppose no-one has complained thus far really since Mongoose is doing a good job... :)

I suppose we should be considering the following:

Military - do we wish someone to decide where/how we use our military units? Should they have enough experience of Civ4 to qualify for the position?
Domestic - do we wish someone to decide when/what gets built in our cities? Again, would they need more specific Civ4 knowledge? Would they also be responsible for deciding on workers and improvements?
Science - who chooses the research path?
Economy - who decides on tax rates and how money is spent?

Would there be backups for such positions? E.g. if the relevant member goes absent, would the Senate in general just make the decisions? Could the senate veto such positions?

So, in conclusion, would we want to open up such positions? Given what the Senate currently does, only 3 positons are needed to keep interest.

If we granted new positions with new powers, how would they fit into the current government structure?

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Bismarck2990 — Sun, 27 May 2007 15:17:42 GMT

[QUOTE]How so Biz? We already must be consulted to found new cities and choose new civics, as well as decide on various legal issues as to how the government runs. What else would you like us to take control of?[/QUOTE]

It's not uncommon in other games, for the government to be divided into sects of people which control different aspects of the game play. You could have one person in charge of workers and the improvements to be done... the other person who is in charge of build orders (what we build, etc.). The main thing I'm pointing at, is that compared to these type of game systems, the Senate is more hands off when it comes to game play. So yes, I do feel that we take on more of a spectators role... and would favor the expansion of our powers.

*When I say expansion. Anything would do. Something that actually keeps the Senate active and interested in doing its job. The above things you've mentioned.. are less then exciting in comparisson, IMO.

The main difference is that in the previously mentioned system, the President is more or less JUST the person who plays the turns, writes the reports, and has various other minor abilities (such as naming units, etc). Everything else is put up to the decision of others.

While in this game, the President decides almost everything on his own accord (aside from what you've mentioned). While the Senate, which is composed of the most people, has minor influence on the actual gameplay in the vast scheme of things.

* One thing I will say, in favor of the senate system, is that there's always ways to draft legislation to expand our powers later in the game. It's ideally Flexible.

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

tones — Sun, 27 May 2007 07:26:24 GMT

[quote]"the President plays the turns. When he feels he needs input from the population, he is required to ask for it. If he feels he is getting enough input he is free to act on it at his discretion." !?!
. . . Benevolent Dictatorship, ahh it has a ring to it doesn't it? And just think how much more of a 'niche' that would create for Psweet and his blade![/quote]

Funnily enough that sounds a bit like something we're working on elsewhere. You may be interested when it's finished:)

As for the rest of the treasonous talk, I like it!

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Comedy Dave — Sun, 27 May 2007 06:50:27 GMT

Them's treasonous words, Scip... :P How are we going to waste - *ahem* spend - the tax money otherwise?... :P

[quote]If anything, I would want us to be given more influence in decisions that effect the game play.[/quote]

How so Biz? We already must be consulted to found new cities and choose new civics, as well as decide on various legal issues as to how the government runs. What else would you like us to take control of?

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Bismarck2990 — Sat, 26 May 2007 18:45:38 GMT

I thought this senate government would be fun...

However, it's become pretty boring. The Democracy Game should promote activity amongst the citizenship and allow some room for more then the president himself to effect the game play. The Senate is more of a body that makes rules and occasionally chimes in to decide on minor things. Heck, we do more legislating then anything else. If anything, I would want us to be given more influence in decisions that effect the game play.

However... disbanding the Senate, would be the quickest way to turn this Democracy Game, into a Spectators Game.

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 26 May 2007 08:15:07 GMT

What if they hosted a government and no citizenry turned up to make use of it!?

I say, given we have a total of about 25 citizens, and about 10 of whom have been consistently active (not to mention that some of us in that "active" portion have suffered periodic absences for various reasons, such as myself) we scratch the whole govt, including the Constitution. Rewrite it to say: "the President plays the turns. When he feels he needs input from the population, he is required to ask for it. If he feels he is getting enough input he is free to act on it at his discretion." !?! :w00t:

. . . Benevolent Dictatorship, ahh it has a ring to it doesn't it? And just think how much more of a 'niche' that would create for Psweet and his blade!

But seriously! Why not scratch the Senate altogether. We don't really seem to be necessary. Just replace the word "Senate" with "Quorum of the People" and replace "Senator" with "Citizen" in the Constitution. Define a Quorum however we agree to define it, and there you have it: Whatever the Senate does today, the citizens can do tomorrow.

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

psweetman1590 — Fri, 25 May 2007 12:40:58 GMT

[quote]Or could just vote in citizens that are actually here[/quote]

Problem is, there aren't enough (at least for now).

Tones: I shall do all in my ever-growing power to make you proud. :D

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

Comedy Dave — Fri, 25 May 2007 10:57:38 GMT

I would agree with this, Psweet.

Given the first 2 senate elections have had all candidates elected unopposed, and some candidates have grudgingly put up their names to make up the numbers this makes sense.

This also means that all Senators will be able to fill their deputy positions more easily... ;)

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

tones — Fri, 25 May 2007 08:59:20 GMT

Dear son-in-law,

My, a Senator eh? And part-time assassin. You certainly are making a name for yourself, and I haven't heard any grumping from Harmony for months, which is a blessed relief, I can tell you.

And here you are suggesting that the Senate be reduced in number, therefore cleverly multiplying your own power. Ah, I like your thinking my lad. That's a fine ploy. To be honest, I doubt many folks hereabouts would notice if the Senate all stuck their collective heads in a vat of "Scipio's Olde Fishpaste Beer" and drowned to a man for all the good they do, so I am quite sure you'll get away with it.

You don't see much of them whatchacallem Judgin' types round neither so I would suggest some devious machinations on your part might get rid of them too. If you were Deputy Dawg Judge and Senator Biggus combined then the next step would be a quick and quiet assassination of this Mongoose fella and you'd make me a proud father-in-law indeed.

Oh my boy, you have the potential to exceed my wildest expectations. Marrying Harmony must have spurred you on somehow. Ultimate power is not beyond your grasp. Let us not heed the words "apathy", "boredom", "burnout", and "what?" that I have heard whispered in the tents of the unwashed masses of Scroteland. Now is the perfect time to strike, and yet your blade is subtle - I admire you for this, sir, indeed I do.

Let it be so. 'Tis but the first ratchet of Mdme Guillotine.

RE: Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

TORARADICAL — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:57:41 GMT

Or could just vote in citizens that are actually here

Alteration of the Constitution discussion thread

psweetman1590 — Thu, 24 May 2007 23:20:12 GMT

It has been suggested on the Senate floor that the following alteration be made to the Constitution:

ARTICLE III: THE SENATE

2. The Senate shall consist of five Senators, to be elected by the People

Change to:

ARTICLE III: THE SENATE

2. The Senate shall consist of three Senators, to be elected by the People

This thread is for discussion, no voting yet. The houses to be dropped if this amendment comes to pass are yet to be determined.

A seperate thread will be created next week to hold the plebiscite that will determine whether this proposed alteration passes. At least two-thirds majority is required to pass.

So, brothers, fathers (in law), countrymen, and comrades, what say you? Speak now!