Announcement

**Timeline** · July 2, 2002, 22:41

Don't forget to say why you vote no!

If you don't tell us, nothing will ever get changed, and in turn, nothing will ever get done

.

**MrWhereItsAt** · July 2, 2002, 23:24

Originally posted by Timeline
Don't forget to say why you vote no!

If you don't tell us, nothing will ever get changed, and in turn, nothing will ever get done

.

Hehe. You asked for it, Timeline.

Before I vote (oh wait, the site won't let me

) -

Section 1:

So, the Foreign Minister is authorized only to exchange maps and workers without consulting relevant Ministers? What would the City Planner have to say about losing workers without a say? Why not just have a clause stating that ANY Minister must consult with the others where his decision would impact on their influences? As it is this amendment seems to be unnecessarily specific - no need to have such a detail for every Minister - just use your nous and consult each other where it is appropriate!

Section 2:

I think the Ambassadors may be needed by the Foreign Advisor at some point, but it shouldn't be in the Constitution. Any Minister or Prez should be able to delegate wherever the hell they feel it is necessary. Did Trip need an amendment to get me to send the savefile out to all the Ministers when he was bogged down with other things? Oh No! Scandal!

Section 3:

A majority passes. I still stand by this. I also think anyone should be able to propose war, but that it just needs approval form the Military Advisor. The President merely carries out the will of the people and the relevant departments, and if they can refuse to accept the proposal, that is too close to a Despotic decision for me.

**Spiffor** · July 3, 2002, 01:45

Since those are constitutianl amendments, do they need 67% "yes" for each suggestion to pass ?

Although you are right about changing the constitution where it is unclear, I fear a multiple-choice poll could be confusing in matters of amendments. However, thanks for clearing this up !

**notyoueither** · July 3, 2002, 01:54

Before I say no to all... where have these been discussed?

Foreign Minister... Make peace... military alliances... MPPs (oh Gods noooooo!) It sounds as if he or she can just do it if he or she so wishes. Not good. MPPs are suicide in many cases and I ask that any MPP be put to a poll.

As for war and peace, not many nations entrust the foreign office with deciding such things on their own. Yes, yes, they may consult the people. However, that is not guaranteed. I would be far happier with a War Cabinet made up of the Pres, SMC and Foreign Minister. Matters of war and peace are far too important to leave to the whims of any one person. The equivalent would be to grant Uber the power to declare war on his own say so. errrm... he can't do that can he?

Ambassadors... Good, except they should not be required. The Foreign Office should name them as needed. Do we really need any right now? Will we later? Maybe.

Declaration of War. No, no, no, no, nooooo. From where comes the idea that only ministers can propose this? Where is the single thread where this has been discussed? Where was it stated that that discussion would lead to this poll? A thousand times, NO!

**notyoueither** · July 3, 2002, 01:56

Originally posted by Spiffor
Although you are right about changing the constitution where it is unclear, I fear a multiple-choice poll could be confusing in matters of amendments.

As my grandpappy used to say... No Sh*t!

**Timeline** · July 3, 2002, 07:38

Section 1:

So, the Foreign Minister is authorized only to exchange maps and workers without consulting relevant Ministers? What would the City Planner have to say about losing workers without a say? Why not just have a clause stating that ANY Minister must consult with the others where his decision would impact on their influences? As it is this amendment seems to be unnecessarily specific - no need to have such a detail for every Minister - just use your nous and consult each other where it is appropriate!

LOL, not to be rude, but have you ever actually read the code of laws?

Nothing here is changed from before except rewording the Minister of Trade to Minister of Economy.

Even when trading maps, the FAM would want to talk to the SMC if he is around, because trading maps can effect national security. Workers yes, he would want to contact Eli. Tech trading, this effects many departments, not just R&D.

The reason for the special statement advising this Minister to contact others, if possible before making the trade, is because it is strongly recommended for this office, as you can began to see decisions made here greatly effect a large amount of other offices.

As for your provision for Ministers to consult each other, the "Ministerial Branch" section states: All Ministers are allowed to advise and consult with each other. They are also granted the right to petition for changes or actions from other Ministers that may be critical to the their department.

The people voted for a Minister of Economy, I am just doing my best to make something we can all agree on. Compare these ammendments with the original constitution, and you will see they are not much different.

Section 2:

I think the Ambassadors may be needed by the Foreign Advisor at some point, but it shouldn't be in the Constitution. Any Minister or Prez should be able to delegate wherever the hell they feel it is necessary. Did Trip need an amendment to get me to send the savefile out to all the Ministers when he was bogged down with other things? Oh No! Scandal

Well, that is a distinct possibility and indeed something I suggested in another poll in the discussion thread for Ambassadors. The reason for the constitutional provision is that they would have "official" titles, and carry out pretty important responsibilities (namely checking for possible trades with other civs every turn). If Ambassadors are shot down here, I'll probably open up (sign) another discussion thread about constitutional provisions for deputies, assistants, helpers, etc. I think such a thing is necessary, because like I stated, I even took some criticism when signing up Jonny as my deputy.

Since those are constitutianl amendments, do they need 67% "yes" for each suggestion to pass ?

Yes.

I fear a multiple-choice poll could be confusing in matters of amendments.

Have you ever been up late when you get this "ingenius" idea and you can't sleep until you do it and prove yourself brilliant?

And then you wake up in the morning and look at what you've done, and realize it wasn't so smart

.

That's kinda what happened with this poll

.

I'm leaning towards reducing the "Declaration of War" poll to a study poll, because since there are 2 "yes" options, it is possible for one person to vote twice, an unfortunate mistake on my part. I have learned however that multiple chioce polls could be good for many yes or no votes.

**MrWhereItsAt** · July 3, 2002, 10:33

Originally posted by Timeline
LOL, not to be rude, but have you ever actually read the code of laws?

No, actually. It was out of protest against having such a document.

I consider myself chastened and I guess since my ideas were defeated at the time, I have to now go and read it.

:

The people voted for a Minister of Economy, I am just doing my best to make something we can all agree on. Compare these ammendments with the original constitution, and you will see they are not much different.

No harshness intended here or ever, Timeline. I merely do what I can to irk the Ministers at almost every conceivable turn

- consider me the opposition and just ignore my tone if it sounds too belligerent. I am deeply involved in the Civ2 game so I know what it's like.

Have you ever been up late when you get this "ingenius" idea and you can't sleep until you do it and prove yourself brilliant?

And then you wake up in the morning and look at what you've done, and realize it wasn't so smart

.

That's kinda what happened with this poll

.

No worries - it looks like a good idea, but, from my viewpoint, all these things are common sense enough they do not need to be in any "Constitution" anyway.

**Robber Baron** · July 3, 2002, 10:38

I have to agree with Spiff: as currently constructed, this poll is confusing. Let's break this out and cover these one by one.
The question of declaring war in particular needs more air time.

**Harovan** · July 3, 2002, 11:00

The Minister of Economy was meant to replace the Ministers of Finance and Trade. I see nothing about this in the Amendment. What I see is, that we made one new office, and not that we close 2 for this.

Ambassadors may be useful later, when we have more contacts and the work for the Foreign Advisor grows. Right now, there's no reason. This should be decided, when the time is due. Let's not over-complicate the game.

War... that's a joke, right? Or is it a try to take the power away to the citizens? This is a game of Democracy, not Despotism.

No, no, no!

**Kuciwalker** · July 3, 2002, 11:16

The Minister of Economy Amendment already exists.

**Timeline** · July 3, 2002, 11:42

But it has not been incorporated into the Code of Laws yet.

The Minister of Economy was meant to replace the Ministers of Finance and Trade. I see nothing about this in the Amendment. What I see is, that we made one new office, and not that we close 2 for this.

Let me try to make this as clear as possible, so there is no more confusion.

If the ammendment is accepted, then This:

Secton of Constitution
Minister of Trade:
The Minister of Trade is the principle authority on all international trade. He/she handles all trade involving the exchange of luxurious goods and resources, and has control over any times that gold may be involved.

The Trade Advisor is granted the power to make/accept Trade Embargos.

Minister of Finance:
The Financial Minister has the power to control the budget of our civ. That involves assigning income for science, trade and luxuries.

Will be replaced by This:

Minister of Economy:

The Minister of Economy ensures our nation's commercial market progresses smoothly and effeciently. This officer manages the budget of our nation and is the principle authority on all international trade involving Gold, Strategic and Luxury resources.

Trade Embargos must be approved by the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

And this would reworded:

Minister of Foreign Affairs:
This minister is the government’s chief advisor on foreign affairs and is responsible for carrying out foreign policy. He/She is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances. The exchange of all items, except Strategic, Luxury, or Gold resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consult the appropriate ministers when gifts or exchanges are involved.

This Minister is required to consult the Trade advisor when Gold, Luxury or Strategic resources are involved.

To This:

Minister of Foreign Affairs:

This minister is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances.

The exchange of all items, except Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is, however, strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consults with other ministers whos office may be affected by such trades.

This Minister is required to consult the Minister of Economy when Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources are involved in a trade.

Trade Embargos must be approved by the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

Hope this helps!

**Timeline** · July 3, 2002, 11:47

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
War... that's a joke, right? Or is it a try to take the power away to the citizens? This is a game of Democracy, not Despotism.

Yes, it was a joke

**Timeline** · July 3, 2002, 11:59

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Ambassadors may be useful later, when we have more contacts and the work for the Foreign Advisor grows. Right now, there's no reason. This should be decided, when the time is due. Let's not over-complicate the game.

I agree. And now I think about it more, I am inclined to agree with Mr. WIA that this provision is unneeded. It should perhaps be up to each FAM to decide how to run his office, and indeed up to all Ministers to decide.

I think any Minister or Executive Officer should be able to enlist as many Deputies, Ambassadors, Generals, Secretaries etc, etc, as he/she wants.

Question is, do they have that right now? There is nothing in the CoL that says they can't, but people still seem opposed to the idea.

As far as these ones not having power, dont believe that, because they may in some cases. For example, they would be the one to take over should the Minister not be able to make it.

So how should this be dealt with? Should the people elect the assistants?

Should Ministers be entrusted to pick their helpers and backups, but have hell to pay if they do a bad job?

**Torkkeli** · July 3, 2002, 12:03

Re: Official: 3 Proposed Ammendments of the Constitution

Originally posted by Timeline

Section II: Ambassadors

Minister of Finance:

Ambassadors:

These government agents are appointed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, and assist him/her by reporting on specific details of individual nations. The Foreign Affairs office is required to have one Ambassador per Foreign Nation, with each Ambassador assigned to one specific foreign country.

I'll be happy with this if the following changes are made:

These government agents are appointed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, and assist him/her by reporting on specific details of individual nations.
The Foreign Affairs office can have one Ambassador per Foreign Nation, with one Ambassador assigned to one or more foreign countries. One Foreign Nation has only one Ambassador.

This is to say that they are not mandatory, and one Ambassador can handle multiple nations.

Why?

Because I think that when one Ambassador handles one or more Embassies at a time he/she can produce information quickly to us, as he/she can also use the info of the other nations to his advantage and tell us something about the relations of the other nations.
(yeah thats not very clearly said but I hope you get what I mean...

)

Also the reports would all look the same from the same Ambassador.

S1: I Accept the Minister of Economy Ammendment AS IS	26.02%	32 votes
S1: I Reject the Minister of Economy Ammendment as it is now	8.94%	11 votes
S2: I Accept The Ambassador Ammendment AS IS	17.89%	22 votes
S2: Nope, The Ambassador Idea Needs More Work (explain below)	7.32%	9 votes
S2: Nope, Forget About the Ambassador Idea, it Sucks!	10.57%	13 votes
S3: I Accept Declaration of War Ammendment, 51% is Enough to Declare War	10.57%	13 votes
S3: I Accept Declaration of War Ammendment, 67% is Required to Declare War	14.63%	18 votes
S3: I Do Not Accept the War Ammendment	4.07%	5 votes

Announcement

Official: 3 Proposed Ammendments of the Constitution

Official: 3 Proposed Ammendments of the Constitution

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment