Amendment: DPO

[DeathByTheSword]

i am right now DPO and i have seen some drawback in this post....to put it simple.....it have to less of a power....so i want to add:

DPO has same veto as DIA over building orders when military emergeny is at hand

and

conquered bases will be under martial law the first 5 turns. this means that DPO has Veto over all building orders

just an idea if it is not liked by everone forget it

[Pandemoniak]

I strictly disagree with the reasons of this amendment -- more power to one directorate. Directorates havent been created equal, and some directors have more power than others. Whatever the directorate and the director is, I dont think we whould change the balance of power if everything is working fine.

I dont understand the other reasons for the changes you'd like to make. Are they really needed ?

[DeathByTheSword]

well i dont mean i needs more power...but sometimes the DPO and a governer have a argument of what to build....a former or garrison...bu the governer has the last call....problem is that CPO is there to protect the faction and the governer to take care of his region.....BPO has a greater good to think of most of the time governers dont....

[Pandemoniak]

Well, theorically, the DPO is not concerned by industry, and therefore is not concerned by the building lists.
He can advice or ask for more troops to the Director of Internal Affairs, and ask this director to veto the orders.

Even better, he can start a poll to check the popular willingness between a garrison and a former, therefore "forcing" the governor to build what the people want.

It is indeed right that it would be simpler to give the veto power directly to the DPO, but then, why not giving it as well to the DoS and all other directors ? The DoIA is the only one allowed to veto because he's responsible for building, and for nothing else, thus he works for coinstruction, not for science/military/anything.

About the Martial Law, I dont really have an opinion yet, but I think the "five turns" are stupid : if we have to use it, we'd better make it ten turns, since thats the time when a base is "revolted".
Martial Law doesnt sound really PK to me... Maybe I'd prefer the term "UN Mission of Peace Protection".

[Method]

who would be responsable for governor-ing captured bases though? can we give the DPO that job?

[DeathByTheSword]

i would say or the DIA or the governer which region in besides it...

then next term we need a new governer for that area...but DPO could do it some turn but not all i am already governer for another region

[Method]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
i am already governer for another region

oh yeah...

[GeneralTacticus]

we'd better make it ten turns, since thats the time when a base is "revolted"

Actually, it's fifty turns.

who would be responsable for governor-ing captured bases though? can we give the DPO that job?

Don't see why not, at least until we can set up a new region with it's own governor to include that base, or expand an existing one.

[Drogue]

Possibly for 5 or ten turns, but I think being in charge of all military units is quite a powerful position as it is, I'm not sure I agree with DBTS sentiment that it needs more.

I'd agree with article 2 at a pinch, but not with article 1, only the DIA should have a veto IMHO.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by TKG
who would be responsable for governor-ing captured bases though? can we give the DPO that job?

As stated by the constitution, its up to the DIA : he can either control it himself, or give it to one of his minions er... Governors.

I suggest we only add the possibility that the DIA gives power to the DPO, when Special Peacekeeping Operations are needed. Theres no sense to put the Martial Law necessary, it should only be in case of military threat.

[Drogue]

That's a much better idea IMHO, it should be the DIA's decision who gets governorship of captured bases.