Official: 3 Proposed Ammendments of the Constitution

[Timeline]

Good Points....

What do you think about my previous statement?:

I think any Minister or Executive Officer should be able to enlist as many Deputies, Ambassadors, Generals, Secretaries etc, etc, as he/she wants. And each Minister is allowed to construct their office how they see fit.

The only problem I see with this: If Ministers are allowed to appoint anyone into their office, it could give rise to the ugly head of party politics, I fear. This is more how it works in contemporary US Democracy.

[Proserpine]

My reasons

I am in favour of the MoE idea, however wrt Ambassadors, I feel strongly that in a Democracy game these should be elected by the citizens, not appointed. Similarly, if Ministers are to have Deputies, in my view these should also be elected (and City/Province Governors and their Deputies (and so on).

[UnOrthOdOx]

People may need assitants down the road. I don't see why the elected official couldn't appoint these, but there definately needs to be some formal announcement so everyone knows who is such and aid. We can't just have people showing up and saying, oh yeah, (insert minister here) appointed me to take his place this turn.

The need for them, and what they are entitled to do, should be up to the minister.

As discussed, I understood that Ambassador idea was mostly going to be aiding in giving out the reports, to keep the people informed, not turn-chat stuff, but the minister should be in charge of what his aid can do, but make sure everyone else knows that as well.

How about an ammendment something like this:

All Ministers have the right to appoint aids to assist them as needed.

The Minister will decide on which duties the aids will oversee in their place.

The aids should be named in public with a list of their duties for (insert time frame here) before they are able to conduct any acts pertaining to the office. Any act made by such aids is to be considered an act of the Minister which appointed them.


(someone can probably make this sound more 'official')

[Torkkeli]

Originally posted by Timeline
Good Points....

What do you think about my previous statement?:

I think any Minister or Executive Officer should be able to enlist as many Deputies, Ambassadors, Generals, Secretaries etc, etc, as he/she wants. And each Minister is allowed to construct their office how they see fit.

The only problem I see with this: If Ministers are allowed to appoint anyone into their office, it could give rise to the ugly head of party politics, I fear. This is more how it works in contemporary US Democracy.

Yes this could lead to very big politics and then things can get ugly...

But to counter those formations in the offices there is always the fear of beeing kicked out. As we have a lot of ppl here one can easily get enough names to throw someone out of the office. The number of votes against should be something around 3/5 votes to make it a bit easier and to counter parties forming coalitions to support someone.

Also on a side note here: It would be interesting to see how many 'parties' we have now and how many members each has.

[Kuciwalker]

I think this poll needs to be declared invalid. No insult to you, Timeline, but it is sort of confusing if you don't read the fine print, and Amendments to the Constitution should have only single-choice polls, not multi-choice.

[Aggie]

First I thank you for all the organizing you have done. However my i suggest that this should have been three threads in the name of simplicity. I also think that all amendments should be in a yea/nea abstain format(I assume the abstains won't influence the 66%, ie you need 66% of the yea/nea vote). Perhaps this is a good amendment. Now to the issues at hand
1) NO, Now my reasoning, Ministers have domain of their areas, however things such as trade embargo do also effect foriegn etc, so maybe the president should have the final say on something like this instead of a minister. The logic is that an embargo effects foreign/economy/war and thus is larger than any minister. An example, if we could trade luxeries with somebody(say france) and we also wanted to go to war an embargo would help us since it would prevent us from making any trades we would have to break later to go to war, however it would also effect the happiness in the cities negatively so that would also have to be dealt with. So there are conflicts between ministers, thus it should be the presidents decision.
2) I voted no because the foreign minister should be able to handle this on his own.
3) No because nowhere do i see who can propose it. A note here what are the current rules for declaring war as of now i don't see them in our const. If they aren't formalized now i propose a thread to that, since it will come up soon.
aggie

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Aggie
First I thank you for all the organizing you have done. However my i suggest that this should have been three threads in the name of simplicity. I also think that all amendments should be in a yea/nea abstain format(I assume the abstains won't influence the 66%, ie you need 66% of the yea/nea vote).

I concur, so should I vote at all here?
Maybe abstrain on s3, by checking maybe just one?
Hmmm... I like yah/nay/dunno options for official polls.
Or it gets too complex...

[Kloreep]

I would vote for Torkkeli's version of the ambassador amendment, but i vote nay to the proposed version of the amendment. I don't think making any of it mandatory is a good idea.

[Robber Baron]

I say yes to ambassadors (and generals), to be appointed by their respective ministers, as said ministers wish to designate.
Only groundrule would be that the minister must inform citizens of appointments (and arrangements for temporary proxy playing).
The appropriate safeguard against deputies running amok would be impeachment of (ir)responsible ministers.

[Spiffor]

Timeline, I have another question :
Is the MoE amendment intended to replace the amendment I wrote, or is your text intended to be added in the MoE chapter (which has been added in the constitution once MoE poll has ended) ?

If your amendment is intended to replace mine, I'd have to disagree with you, because my work was much more precise on the Minister of Economy funtion. If it's intended to add to the constitution, your amendment is welcome because it explains the spirit of the Ministry of Economy.

[Timeline]

You already wrote the ammendment to the constitution? Where is it? I don't ever recall seeing a poll.

Would you be so kind as to supply me with a link?

[Spiffor]

The poll and amendment suggestion can be seen here.

The first post is the amendment suggestion, and it has been stated several times that it was an amendment proposal (so that voters didn't get confused because of the lack of "amendment" within the title).

Trip announced this officially here, but couldn't update the constitution immediately due to technical difficulties.

With this info in mind, do you think your amendment should add to mine, or replace it ?

[notyoueither]

May I also suggest that any official poll with multiple yes options and only 1 no, or the reverse... is biased/rigged/invalid?

It should be yes/no. 2 options (3 with abstain).

What do you think?

[Timeline]

It is possible to have a fair, unbiased poll with more than 1 yes/no option, just not with multiple chioce lol .

Notice: The first option in the poll only has 2 options. It askes: "Should we adopt the the Minister of Economy Ammendment AS IS" with yes or no options. This poll is unbiased (it is! REALLY!) and there is no need to, sigh, declare it invalid. It would only take up more time.

Yes, I admit, I messed up with the other choices, but it would only slow us down to have a repoll on option 1, and I know we would get the same results.

Besides, the people have already voted for this ammendment, it is basically just combining the Trade and Finance positions, and rewording reference to them in other sections to Minister of Economy. It is a simple and basic ammendment, and simple is many times best.

[Timeline]

Well spiff, all I can say is that what you wrote is basically the same as what I have except to one difference, which I will get to in a sec.

The problem with the "ammendment" you proposed in my opinion, is that it did not seem to be in constitutional form, but more in principle form.

Minister of Economy:

Duties:
- To adjust the sliders in agreement with the People or the President. These two get actually to decide who should get what budget. The minister of economy should only give documented advice.
- To check if cities produce a good amount of money, and petition the city planner to build marketplaces and banks where it has to be. The minister of economy has no direct power on cities however.
- To check if resources and luxuries are well dispatched in the empire, and to petition the minister of public works if different. The minister of economy has no direct power on workers.
- To establish trades with the AI involving resources, luxuries or gold.
- To haggle gold amounts in a trade decided by the foreign minister. The minister of economy has to agree with trades involving goods among other things (example, he has to agree to a suggested "Fur for IronWorking" trade). The minister of economy has no direct power on trades involving gold among other things, but no trade goods.

The ability to call for trade embargoes goes to the foreign advisor.

This is exactly what should be added to the constitution according to you, right?

Unfortunately, this is not even in constitutional format. My suggestion is merely adding into the constitution, with the words in my first post, what your poll has already showed the people want.

Please understand, I was under the impression that you were proposing an ammendment be made, but I did not think you wanted the exact text of your post copied into the constitution. I thought you wanted the list of principles you mentioned incorporated into the constitution, which is what I did above, except for one difference, which again, was done by mistake on my part (sigh). I guess we gotta talk about that now.....

In the ammendment above I gave the right for anyone to propose a trade embargo, but the Minister of Economy and FAM must first approve it.

Like I said this is not an attempt to undermine you, it was done totally by mistake.

But the more I think about, the more sense it does make. I mean, a trade embargo could never be carried out without the help of Government Economy Officials. And, should such a strong tool be able to be used by any one man? (What if the UFC gets into office and embargos all other nations, forcing us into war? )

So, yes, this would overwrite what you wrote in your post, but it has the same guidelines, just stated in a more constitutional form. Also, this ammendment changes references in other areas of the constitution to the new Minister of Economy position, and, in my opinion, would serve us better as a constitutional document.