Official: Military Commanders Amendment

[UnOrthOdOx]

So, instead, we make up a seperate 'aide' ammendmant for all the ministers who think they need one?

I am just saying, who are we to tell someone that THEY do not require any help, but this guy over here does? Things happen, it is a long term, someone may be shorter on time by the end of it.

If you fear Aides "taking over" then we could put restrictions into the ammendment, say they can only poll, post info, whatnot, but cannot conduct any 'official' game moves? Or just say that they act as the Minister decides, if that means full authority, so beit, if someone don't like the aids decision, while acting officially for the Minister, impeach the Minister.

I am not saying what needs to be written, but why make many ammendments when we can have one cover all Ministers? Put restrictions if people feel its needed, but let the poeple doing the jobs decide whether they need help.

[Robber Baron]

Unortho's suggestions make sense to me. As I've posted elsewhere, the appropriate safeguard against military commanders running amok is impeachment of the War Minister (for failing to keep his generals in line).
One proviso, I guess: removal of a War Minister should automatically (and constitutionally) dismantle his command staff.

[Fatwreck]

U forgot the banana vote...

[Panag]

hi ,

the farther the game goes , the more aides shall be needed , we might aswell start now , so that they can learn , and the whole government is worked in very fast , ....befors things get to complicated to do , ...

vote yes now , dont vote no if it needs to be done in 50 turns , do it now , vote YES .

have a nice day

[Aggie]

I voted no, but several points
1) poll is invalid because of the first post
from the constitution

Fairness and Neutrality:
The first post in a poll thread should be completely neutral. No options are to be suggested for voting, just what each option entails in an unbiased format. The same is true for the voting options. While poking fun at an option will probably be acceptable, if someone thinks that it interferes with a voter’s decision, then they may deem it invalid. If you show bias in your options, then it is no longer fair. So be warned, if your poll is a landslide one way and should win but someone feels that the options you presented are unfair and calls for a validity vote, if it’s deemed invalid your poll is useless.

the first post here is bias.
2) I suspect that this is already allowed for and is thus unnecessary
3) This could lead to the military minister not keeping a good control of the troops. If there are too many units to control there are many people, sir ralph and nye, come to mind, who will provide their assistance and wisdom so as to prevent him from making an obvious error.
4) With the pace of our game there is plenty of time for the minister to study the map and units, so there really is no need for it.

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
We just need a general amendmant that allows for ALL Ministers to appoint aids AS THEY SEE FIT. Why break it down into seperate divisions. Give the power over this to the Ministers, and make some guidelines for how to inform/make official/whatever these aids to the general public.

I am with UnOrthOdOx on this

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Aggie
1) poll is invalid because of the first post
from the constitution

Unfortunatly, yes...

I would have voted NO to the Constitution ratification.
(if it had not been for my recent visit to the "highcultural" festival in the Viking town of Roskilde, Denmark)
So it was ratified, and we gotta change it! (66% yea, needed)

My reason for being so negative is that I think the Constitution were not consistent and not meditated enough upon. It could have been discussed clause by clause and given some more common sense. I hope our developing minds of the Thinkers Guild will approve to my point here, and figure out some modification proposals for this constitution...

I do not think there is much common sense in demanding unbiased writing in the polls here. Should anyone be able to invalidate polls through their speculataions on other's intentions?

[Spiffor]

I miss the abstain option. Although I strongly support aides jobs (generals, province governors, "ambassadors" some way), I feel uncomfortable with the exact amendment skywalker suggested.

I completely agree with Unorthodox : we need a general amendment on aides : every minister could hire aides and fire them as they see fit, and aides could only have competences within the ministry's field of competences.

Unorthodow, as it is your idea, would you mind starting a debate thread on such an amendment ?

[Jon Shafer]

Like Unortho said, if a minister needs help, he can ask. No need to force it upon him. I vote no (that it be required, not that we have them, and have them 'official').

[ThePlagueRat]

So why does it have to be passed as a law then? (in order to be official)

[Jon Shafer]

Our Constitution is the only official document that any issues can be brought up to. Anything 'official' or enforced must go through the Constitution first.

[ThePlagueRat]

And the constitution can be edited too... with a majority of 66%.
So we just have to go through it again! With some more consultation and some more use of common sense.
Am I not right? (OK, first I'll give it a second reading)

[Jon Shafer]

In 2 weeks, of course.

I just don't think that having peons should be a requirement for a minister. If he gives his orders to the President beforehand, then why should he have aides? There's really no need to force him to have them, IMO.

[Kloreep]

The amendment specifically says the SMC may appoint generals. So he can also handle it all himself if he wants to.

I like this amendment, as it gives both the president and the people the power to kick generals out themselves without going through the SMC.

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, and... what says you can't appoint aides?
As the old saying goes "if it's not not allowed, then you can do it." Okay, so I made that up, but you get the point.