Debate: What do we want?

[Lycastus]

Yeah, it's a question of scale - on a small scale, every little thing can and should be voted on. However, once our empire is much larger, descisions will have to be made on a larger scale, as the smaller details are at that point much less important. (although still important, which is why the president must be good at playing Civ, but I don't think someone who isn't would run for president, so that's not a problem).

[Epistax]

hmm well actually things wont change much

1) As far as I've seen, we haven't have any discussions on the specific movement of any given piece, but the actions generally.

2) We will always have discussions as to what any given city should be building-- even when we have lots and lots of cities. This comes from different views of how to grow an empire and differences in peace/war time units among players.

3) These cases and plans we look at wont change much from their current form, and we could even stick a Yay or Nay to each one.

Pretty simple what I am saying is I don't see the think that will be changed, upon closer inspection. It's just not there.

All in all it'll be alright.

[LordImpact]

I like the fact that the people get to voice their opinion of actions. I would like to see this done as long as possible, but it should stop when it starts to hinder progress. I have a feeling proposals are going to get more and more general in nature. For instance: Instead of saying "I want this unit to explore north west of our city into the jungle", the proposals will just become "I want this unit to explore". And that's ok. As long as we can get some sense of whats going on, I'll be happy.

--Impact

[GePap]

In the future we will have to construct a systm in which the cabinet is given wide latitude in their actions during turchats to make the desicions they think are best while then making them more open to accountability by voters if the citizens feel they screwed up royally. We may have to move to more representative dem. from direct dem.

[Panag]

hi ,

more turns

have a nice day

[punkbass2000]

Sometimes ministers can't make it to the turnchats, however. I know I can't always make it. Should office be restricted to those who happen to live in a time zone that coordinates well with when turnchats are? What if turnchats occur at 3am where you live? You can't be a minister then? To me, the answer is to have deputies or chat reps to represent a minister when s/he is absent. I would personally be happy to have one, if anyone is interested.

[Fatwreck]

Originally posted by Trip
That's it, I'm not predicting armageddon.

*Sigh*

[Epistax]

during periods of anarchy can we randomly slay ministers?

[LordImpact]

theres nothing like a good old fashioned purge

[Panag]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Sometimes ministers can't make it to the turnchats, however. I know I can't always make it. Should office be restricted to those who happen to live in a time zone that coordinates well with when turnchats are? What if turnchats occur at 3am where you live? You can't be a minister then? To me, the answer is to have deputies or chat reps to represent a minister when s/he is absent. I would personally be happy to have one, if anyone is interested.

hi ,

if they cant make it , let their number two from the office play , ....

more turns
or , ....

no more import of banana's , you can take that to the bank

have a nice day

[Fatwreck]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
To me, the answer is to have deputies or chat reps to represent a minister when s/he is absent. I would personally be happy to have one, if anyone is interested.

Hey! Don´t steal my stuff :

Originally posted by Fatwreck
and if for some reason they can´t then they should have a stand-in