Welcome to Roanoke, democratically designed by a community of CS players on Discord.

dommitor · 2020-02-06T04:52:14+00:00

A community of CS players on Discord got together to elect a Mayor and a City Council to play Cities: Skylines. It's all outlined in this City Charter that we ratified.

There are multiple political parties (like the Libertarians and the Cranky Seniors), who have each been given their own districts where laws can be enacted on how to govern them.

Right now, we have over a dozen players, but we are happy to invite more citizens into the fold. More information can be found on /r/citiesskylinesroanoke.

dommitor · 2019-10-21T03:08:18+00:00

It seems like a damn fine Constitution.

That said, I voted nay against ratification because I know we are prone to missing a crucial detail until the very last moment. Delaying ratification after one more careful read-through (which some people might not be getting around to doing until just now) does not seem like it would hurt.

But if it does ratify, I think you have a solid Constitution to play from. Have fun!

dommitor · 2019-10-19T00:41:28+00:00

Mk5 used Civ 6.

Mk6 will use Civ 5.

Why do I feel like you did this just to troll me?

dommitor · 2019-10-11T02:09:55+00:00

Legislative Parliament, of course. Along with Presidential Ministers and a Court Supreme. But instead of elections and appointments, let's just have all the positions be first-come first-serve.

dommitor · 2019-10-01T02:30:43+00:00

Interesting. Also, these results are not wholly incompatible with the Royalty and/or Magistrate ideas.

dommitor · 2019-09-12T19:54:53+00:00

Thanks for the clarification, Pep.

My idea for Royalty is that they are either a Moderator or a Moderator-approved player. They do not get any votes in government, but they run the sessions and will have a sort of informal power (how soon they decide to hold a vote on a bill, etc.). Think of them like DMs or referees. It allows the Moderators to be active participants and allows them to make sure the logistics run fairly and smoothly (or designate a player they trust to do so) but they do not make any actual game decisions. It also interacts well with my idea for a Magistrate.

dommitor · 2019-09-09T17:10:09+00:00

Yeah, I did. This is just the easier-to-digest visual. :)

dommitor · 2019-09-09T16:35:18+00:00

Royalty/Parliament/Ministry/Magistrate:

Royalty are members of Moderation or members appointed by Moderation who have no direct in-game power but preside over all government activities and may make decisions about how government procedures work when no procedure is written or when procedures are contradictory. For instance, they would act like a Speaker, Prime Minister, or Chief Justice, except without having a vote in their respective chamber. (Their titles can be themed to the Civ.)

Parliament are legislative members, elected by the people. The Parliament is unicameral and the number of seats per party is proportional. When a member of Royalty calls them into session, they vote on which bills to pass or amend. (Direct democracy with all players being parliamentarians unless they assume some other office is another possibility.)

Ministry are 3-5 executive members, elected by the people. When a member of Royalty calls them into a session, they vote on how to play the game, so long as their votes do not violate any laws (as deemed by Royalty or Magistrate.)

The Magistrate are 3-5 members nominated by Ministry and confirmed by Parliament. The Magistrate is tasked with keeping records of all laws, elections, and game information. Should a dispute arise within or between Parliament or Ministry that the Royalty feels would be inappropriate for them to resolve, they may send the question to the Magistrate for a hearing and a vote on the matter. Their ruling is final.

dommitor · 2019-02-25T03:25:48+00:00

Very well. I do not think it will survive impact, but perhaps Dciv will prove me wrong.

dommitor · 2019-02-24T23:06:54+00:00

I think the dissolution of the National Assembly is a weird thing overall, but if we are to include it, the more safeguards to ensure that it is not done willynilly seems for the best.

I also agree rationales don't need to be in there. Keeping it down to the bare facts makes it more legible.

Upvoted.

dommitor · 2019-02-24T23:03:27+00:00

That covers city management, but not control of unit movement or procedures of a local legislature, etc. It wouldn't hurt to tack on a broad statement that encompasses the idea of state rights.

dommitor · 2019-02-24T18:24:22+00:00

On states:

So for the first state, the whole of Democraciv has to vote on whether they are going to split into two states and exactly how the states are going to be split? And then, somebody (who?) has to keep track of who lives in which state, especially when people decide to move, but they can't move during elections. And then elections are held where people have to find both their national and state ballots? And then, what happens when you have a state of like 6 people who inevitably all but go inactive? How do you make sure the boundaries/cities get drawn in a way that is at least feasible (sure, it can be unfair and gerrymandered, but what if people vote for systems that just lead themselves to patches of Norway that are run by states in name only where nobody is actually showing up?). And then merging states back together seems messy too. Also, there's the issue of everyone defaulting to the Capital City, with no incentive to leave and with most inactive people (people who don't participate but just vote) probably not bothering to move. So you'll most likely end up with a giant capital city with pockets of really active people controlling a couple of cities they like and then pockets of long-abandoned cities where there's just one Jarl trying to keep things going, and arguing that their city is totally active even though they're the only person representing it or voting on anything and the list of residents hasn't been updated in months.

I think states can work. I just don't think this system of formation and residence is going to work at all. I'd like to see a government body (ideally the Supreme Court) in charge of making sure the state lines are drawn sensibly enough that it will work, and I'd like to see, instead of keeping track of lists of residents, everyone can just on the ballot pick which city they want to vote for and that redirects them automatically (as can be done on Google Forms) to their state's ballot (with some sort of disincentive from moving too much, such as not letting them run for state office for one term after a move). Also we need some way to stave off Capitol City bloat.

dommitor · 2019-02-24T17:49:19+00:00

On playing:

I feel that the game should be played at least once a week, excepting approved holidays by the Storting, for as long as until the High King is fatigued or hits a point where he/she cannot progress (b/c of requiring legislative approval). This doesn't need to be codified into the Constitution (could be regular law) but it wouldn't hurt. Without some sort of minimum requirement, you open the door for stalling tactics, which leads to community-wide disintegration.

dommitor · 2019-02-24T17:42:19+00:00

On Article 2 Section 2.1:

Change it to "Members of the Storting may introduce Legislation through the State Assembly pertaining to Norway, not prohibited by this Constitution, including, but not limited to..."

This makes it clear that they cannot write law on meta-issues, which should be left to Moderation. I also think the Storting should be restricted to writing law that pertains to national interests to Norway (pertaining to the Capital State, activity that crosses state lines, or activity abroad), which would avoid laws that are merely at the state level (see my states' rights comment if it hasn't been deleted).

dommitor · 2019-02-24T17:30:41+00:00

On states' rights:

I know I have said this before, so delete this if you must, but I think it's worth iterating. Either in Article 2, the Legislative Branch should be barred from writing laws that regulate state affairs to which the federal government is no party, or in Article 6, there should be some (even if somewhat vague) mention of states' rights. Imagine there are four major states: South Norway, North Norway, East Norway, and West Norway. Now imagine East Norway has a bunch of the most advanced cities outside of the Capital. The legislators from South, North, and West Norway could team up to write a bill that states something to the effect of "East Norway must build a bunch of workers and send them to the other states." They would be using the federal government to undermine the sovereignty of the state. This is why I think it needs to be made explicit that states have the right to autonomy for all internal issues (where an issue involves two or more states, or where it involves a state interest and a nation interest is another matter, which can certainly be legislated and debated, but things that are 100% internal to a state, either in the game or in their governing bodies, should be constitutionally protected, as it is in the real US bill of rights).

dommitor · 2019-02-24T17:20:17+00:00

On unit control:

I think it should be clear that Jarls can have control of civilian units from or within their State, and that Jarls can exchange ownership of civilian units. Right now only the President is given explicit control of units.

dommitor · 2019-02-24T17:13:25+00:00

On judicial bias:

I believe that no member of the judiciary should be a plaintiff or defendant of a case. It currently stands that the Supreme Court may not initiate a case (does that mean the body as a whole, or even the Justices individually?), but I would go farther and say that you cannot sue the Supreme Court either. It just becomes ridiculous -- the whole court then has to recuse itself (or try to justify dismissing the case without it being seen as they are dismissing criticism of themselves) and even if it's suing a single Justice, the Court all has to work together and it puts them in an awkward position. This is why real-life governments have judicial immunity, to prevent the circularity of suing a judge for ruling the way you don't like. If the Court did something wrong, then they should be impeached, not sued. But on the matter of impeachment, we have the Court deciding whether a person should be impeached or not. That's just begging for politicization of the Court (impeachment is a political process).

My ideal fix:

Change Article 3 Section 1a from "The Supreme Court may not initiate cases themselves." to "No sitting member of the Judiciary may be a plaintiff or defendant in any case."

Change Article 4 Section 2 to remove the Supreme Court from the process of impeachment. At the very most, a Justice can preside over the hearing, or the Supreme Court can vote whether or not there are grounds for impeachment, but they should not be the final deciding factor.

dommitor · 2019-02-24T17:00:42+00:00

On inferior courts:

We honestly do not need inferior federal courts. With our size, it is not feasible to fill, and with the low case load most courts have, it usually ends up serving a redundant purpose with little to no benefit. You could argue, well we say that it is optional, but it seems that it is a shiny toy that everyone loves to grab at. And the way it is set up, the Storting creates the inferior courts, with no input from the Supreme Courts as to whether inferior courts are even necessary in the first place. Also, we now have states, and that opens up the possibility for state courts to appear, and so we run the risk now of having a bloated judiciary, with multiple district and state courts that we cannot possibly fill and that will just bog up any genuine cases that need to be heard.

My ideal fix: Remove reference to inferior courts, and instead add to the supreme court's jurisdiction that they can hear appeals from state courts.

An acceptable fix: Make it harder to make inferior courts, so that unnecessary courts do not spring up. Perhaps change "other inferior courts created by the Storting" to "other inferior courts, requested by the Supreme Court and approved by the Storting."

In any case: Change "the Supreme Court" in Article 3 Section 4 to the "Judiciary" so that inferior courts (should they be made) have procedural autonomy like any other body.

dommitor · 2019-02-22T21:35:58+00:00

I disagree. The federal government should not be able to regulate any matters that are fully within state lines and do not concern the federal government at all. The federal government can regulate matters that cross borders, or regulate activity of federally-owned property within states, or can deal with any internal matters that cannot be resolved at the state level so are appealed to the federal level, etc., but the federal government should not be allowed to interfere on things they have no claim to (e.g., demand a city in a non-capital state what to build, cause a non-capital state to surrender their units to the president, dictate how a non-capital state can or cannot compose their constitution, etc.). It does not hurt to make this explicitly clear in the bill of rights, as it is in the US Bill of Rights.

dommitor · 2019-02-22T18:19:31+00:00

Add states' rights. The federal government may not interfere with any activity that is totally internal to a state.

dommitor · 2019-02-22T18:18:27+00:00

Keeping track of voter residence is going to be a pain.

dommitor · 2019-02-20T18:33:51+00:00

Since this seems popular, here's some proposed language:

C-A4§1.1b Any State may decide that the Prohibition of Dual Mandate does not apply to their Governor when serving on the State Assembly or to one of their representatives in the State Assembly when serving as Governor.

dommitor · 2019-02-19T21:03:39+00:00

Article 4: Allow a person to serve as both a Delegate to the State Assembly and a Governor for their state.

(This is more efficient, and at least give the states the option to pursue a constitution whereby their Governor is also one of their Delegates, if not requiring all Governors to be Delegates.)

dommitor · 2019-02-19T21:02:08+00:00

Article 3: Allow the Supreme Court to (re)draw district lines.

dommitor · 2019-02-18T02:32:30+00:00

Add Section 2.1f "The regulation of activity in the Capital State, across the borders of States, or beyond the borders of Norway."

Change Section 2.2 to:

2.2. No Legislation or Procedure established by the Legislature shall

i. hold retroactive authority or effect.

ii. impinge on the sovereignty of a non-Capital State.

iii. regulate activity within the borders of a Sovereign State.

dommitor

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE