A NEW GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL

[The ANZAC]

Originally posted by conmcb25 a vote against this is a vote against the future of this style of DEMO game. Because you will see me and a lot of the other guys who have been recently posting just disappear.

Why will you leave? Also I don't see how my TWO proposals are a threat to Demo games everywhere

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by The ANZAC


I never said that. All I said was the 2 provisions I listed in my above post.

My problem is yes, the power of STAVKA is being eroded. Before STAVKA was a strong efficient body. Now all the power it had is completely gone and given to the marshal and politburo. It seems as though the politburo has swallowed up all the authority STAVKA had. now STAVKA is nothing more than a rubber-stamping advisory committee. Not what I intended

Why does Stavka have to have more power than the Marshall?

Should they be playing politics or fighting a war?

If Stavka has nmore power than a Marshall then what do we need him for? Why dont you front commanders just do everything by committee?

By the way before we get farther into this debate and Im being extremely upfront here: Am I missing something here that lets say violates the spirit of a demo game? Again I have no experience in demos other than this one. So if I am please set me straight because I am truely ignorant in how the dynamics of a demo game operates.

If this does somehow do that Ill shut up in a heart beat.

[The ANZAC]

Well, I just thought the marshal shouldn't have complete free reign to do whatever. I don't think my proposals would make the marshal less powerful than STAVKA and other than what I outlined in my 2 points, STAVKA wouldn't have any other official political powers.

Also, since this is a Demo game, it would make sense to have it slightly less dictator like, but this is just my opinion. Conmcb, I don't think you're hurting the spirit, you're doing fine

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by The ANZAC


Why will you leave? Also I don't see how my TWO proposals are a threat to Demo games everywhere

First of all I didn't say Demo games everywhere, I said this type of demo, a scenario based one that appeals to lets say a different group of people than usually play a generic civ demo game.

And Im refering to you voting against the politburo. If we dont get it Im leaving. I have no interest in hanging around the forums and just posting what I think people should do, I want to do something and I believe a lot of the other folks around here who have been recently posting a lot do too. So if it fails I think a lot of the recent interest in this game will fade. And isn't one of our goals to get more people invovled and keep them?

Or is our goal to preserve the power of the STAVKA in the hands of a few?

If its the later thats fine but dont expect a lot of us to stick around.

[conmcb25]

And my above statement isnt an ultimatum or anything I think its just a fact.

I can entertain an increased role for STAVKA.

But if the politburo wants to remove the Marshall they should be able to. No matter what the STAVKA says.

[conmcb25]

Anzac the other thing to consider is the Marshall is a pretty thankless job. Without some kind of power, again if H Tower gets tired of us we may have a fine time getting another.

Ill tell you one thing with your powerfull STAVKA initiatives I dont think I would like to do it again. (plus you guys would purge me again in a heartbeat )

[The ANZAC]

Originally posted by conmcb25 And Im refering to you voting against the politburo. If we dont get it Im leaving. I have no interest in hanging around the forums and just posting what I think people should do, I want to do something and I believe a lot of the other folks around here who have been recently posting a lot do too. So if it fails I think a lot of the recent interest in this game will fade. And isn't one of our goals to get more people invovled and keep them?

Or is our goal to preserve the power of the STAVKA in the hands of a few?

WHOA! I NEVER said that I wanted to eliminate the politburo; actually I want a strong one. With STAVKA "Power in the hands of few" you say; then why support a strong marshal which will be power in the hands of even fewer people? I'll repost my two points I want to see incorporated. Once they are I will have no more problems with the govt setup. Those 2 points are my only real grievance against the current govt proposal. I never said I wanted to eliminate/limit the power of the Politburo. That's just a distortion of what I said. So here are my 2 proposals I would hope get adopted:

1. a. the marshal cannot rule indefinitely. Politburo will hold sheduled elections to determine the Marshal.
b. the marshal may be removed by popular referendum, the majority of both STAVKA and the Politburo or just a unanimous STAVKA decision.

2. Front commanders/STAVKA appointments must be confirmed by the Politburo just like the US Senate confrims cabinet officials. If the marshal wants to remove a STAVKA member, it must be approved by the Politburo.

[conmcb25]

Well you said you were going to vote against unless you had your initiatives incorporated. That is what I was referring too! If I distorted anything my apologizes that was NOT my intent.

Just goes to prove debates such as this are much better in person. We should all be in a pub somewhere drinking and figuring out how to do this!

[conmcb25]

I would agree with # 1 if it were worded like this:

1. a. the marshal cannot rule indefinitely. Politburo will hold sheduled elections to determine the Marshal.
b. the marshal may be removed by popular referendum, the majority of the Politburo or a unanimous STAVKA decision. (One of those three)

Again the POLITBURO should be the major force checking the Marshall. (At least IMHO)

[The ANZAC]

Yeah, it is confusing going back and forth between these posts

Also, I would vote in opposition to this, not because I support the old way, but because I do not like the new idea. Once the new idea suits me, I'll vote for it.

[The ANZAC]

Originally posted by conmcb25
I would agree with # 1 if it were worded like this:

1. a. the marshal cannot rule indefinitely. Politburo will hold sheduled elections to determine the Marshal.
b. the marshal may be removed by popular referendum, the majority of the Politburo or a unanimous STAVKA decision. (One of those three)

Again the POLITBURO should be the major force checking the Marshall. (At least IMHO)

Ok, I agree with those

[greeny]

Looks to me like the thing to do is vote on ANZACs ammendments, unless anyone would kile to suggest additional ammendments?

Personaly I have no problem with 1. but I don't realy see the need for 2. It could take quite a while for all the Politburo members to vote on each hiring/fireing. I don't mind the Marshal having power: as long as we can kick him our of office easily if we don't agree with him I think point 2. makes the system unnecessarily complicated.

[conmcb25]

I can agree to #2 if it is worded like this:

Front commanders/STAVKA appointments must be confirmed by the Politburo just like the US Senate confrims cabinet officials. The Marshall still has the authority to remove a front commander.

I changed the second sentence. Sorry but I just dont think the Marshall should have to ask if he wants to relieve a front commander. Maybe I have just spent too much time in the military but a commander should have the right to remove subordinates. I just can't fathom it any other way and Im talking about the American Military not the Soviet Union (where Im sure your future was much more precarious!)

Think about it if Zhukov wanted you gome you were just gone! Do you really think he got permission to do that every time?

Now maybe Im just trying to be too realistic. And you are being more in a demo game mode.

Hopefully we can meet in the middle here and agree to something!

What do you say ANZAC?

[H Tower]

Originally posted by The ANZAC
1. a. the marshal cannot rule indefinitely. Politburo will hold sheduled elections to determine the Marshal.

That would be acceptable to me

b. the marshal may be removed by popular referendum, the majority of both STAVKA and the Politburo or just a unanimous STAVKA decision.

I still maintain that it should be only the Politburo who can remove the marshal, a popular referendum I can deal with too.

2. Front commanders/STAVKA appointments must be confirmed by the Politburo just like the US Senate confrims cabinet officials.

maybe I can see doing this.

If the marshal wants to remove a STAVKA member, it must be approved by the Politburo.

I'm totally against this. If someone is screwing up, or back talking to the marshal about what the marshal has planned to do, he should be gone, no questions asked. If the front commander wants to whine about it afterwards, he can go to the Politburo and complain, maybe they'll listen and ask the Marshal to reconsider. A commander should have control over his subordinates.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by greeny
Looks to me like the thing to do is vote on ANZACs ammendments, unless anyone would kile to suggest additional ammendments?

Personaly I have no problem with 1. but I don't realy see the need for 2. It could take quite a while for all the Politburo members to vote on each hiring/fireing. I don't mind the Marshal having power: as long as we can kick him our of office easily if we don't agree with him I think point 2. makes the system unnecessarily complicated.

greeny I think the great ANZAC/ conmcb25 debate is close to closure. lets see what my esteemed opponent has to say about my number two proposal!