ACDG Government structure.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Maniac
Since you can't change forum moderator every month...

Why couldn't we? We do it constantly in the Civ3 DG. Every new Prez that comes along, I PM Dan and ask him to swap mod powers over. It has never been a problem - even now with the extra workload for him (Mark being away) he always gets back within a few days with the changes and seems to have no problem there whatsoever.

[Maniac]

Ah, thanks for the info.

In that case, do we need some permanent General Secretary, or should everyone be elected?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Maniac, i think it should be polled seperately, i agree with the division of the functions, but not really sure about the (minister's) names and i think other feel the same.

For the ministers we should choose if we call them commitees or ministries, not use both.
If we choose committees then the chosen official would be called Commisioner?

I was thinking of calling them all Secretaries. Though the title "Secretary" may already be a bit overused.

I wouldn't know what to call the combination of Science and Social Engineering though. As for the others:
Secretary for Factional Defence / Military Affairs
Secretary for Foreign Affairs
Secretary for Economic Policy / Affairs
?

In a possible constitution I was thinking of something along the lines of:

Secretary for Factional Defence

Holds the positions of:

• Minister of Defence: is responsible for all offense-capable military units
• Minister of Internal Affairs: is responsible for all base garrisons, and for performing police duties
• Chairman of the Committee for State Security (KGB) : is responsible for all probe units

That way we introduce all sorts of real-life USSR government positions to our constitution, good for role-playing, but give each official still the same general title, instead of Commissioner for one guy and Minister for another.

What do you think of it?

[AdamTG02]

How's this?

The Chairman can post a "vote of no confidence" in the General Secretary. If this succeeds, the Chairman then posts a poll for a new General Secretary. The old GS cannot be a candidate, nor can the Chairman.

Allows a government changeover wityhout the messiness of coups (purges can come later), and has the benefit of allowing the General Secretary to remain in office indefinitely most of the time.

[Lemmy]

...What do you think of it?

Hmm, i'm not sure if the "subpositions" like Minister of Defence should be mentioned...i'd prefer a constitution like the first ACDG, just positions, and tasks...but poll it. It's acceptable for me

[Maniac]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
How's this?

The Chairman can post a "vote of no confidence" in the General Secretary. If this succeeds, the Chairman then posts a poll for a new General Secretary. The old GS cannot be a candidate, nor can the Chairman.

Would a mere "vote of no confidence" of the Chairman be sufficient for new General Secretary elections, or should the previous GS first be impeached/purged by a 66% pro-purge vote?

[AdamTG02]

A 2/3 vote to purge the GS makes sense. Otherwise the vote could hinge on who is paying attention at any specific election.

The only thing is that a Chairman had better be very sure that he will succeed in his vote to depose -- or he is essentially committing political suicide. I donm't think anyone would object to a General Secretary removing and banning from office one who sought to depose him.

[GeneralTacticus]

Yes, that sounds good - although I think coups should still be an option, if the people in question want to start one. They should be less dependant on voting and more on holding positions of pwoer, etc, but they should also be riskier - if the Chairman tries to pruge the GS by vote, if he loses, he may be the only one to fall; if half the Politburo tries to seize power and fails, goodbye to that half of the Politburo.

[Nubclear]

Hmm....We need a lot more positions.

[Octavian X]

The only change I'd add would be forcing those who are voting for a coup against the ruling GS to actually do it publically, instead of hiding behind normal, anonymous polls. This way, the GS has a key tool: removal from office, or public shame, if the coup is unsucessful.

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Octavian X
The only change I'd add would be forcing those who are voting for a coup against the ruling GS to actually do it publically, instead of hiding behind normal, anonymous polls. This way, the GS has a key tool: removal from office, or public shame, if the coup is unsucessful.

Yes, that was basically what I was proposing; a coup is easier to pull off, but the consequences of failure are much more severe.