The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Discussion: 2 Presidents. Prior to an Official Poll
thus my earlier comment that we should lay off the judges until there isn't a major issue, or else they will be chosen based on one opinion they hold.
Quickest resolve is for someone to concede. Trip has unofficially offered to do so if worse comes to worse, (aka petty bickering and people stalling. Look like this thread?) If he does, I'm sure he'll still be very influencial in getting things passed.
we should run background checks and make sure only citizens are voting. even though the constitution does not explicitly say so, there are many other things we do that are not in the constitution and we accept them. I believe it is an unwritten rule that only citizens should vote.
now, the question is, if the background check is run and it turns out that the election results without non-citizen votes is still the same, then what do we do? what if valid citizen votes still tie or have less than 1% difference?
I am all for allowing an assistant or aide to the President, as long as this does not step over into the jurisdiction of the VP. Co-presidents may effectively eliminate the need for a VP. This seems counter to what our constitution says. In that sense, while it is not explicitly forbidden, the office of the VP has a strong case against the idea of a co-presidency.
So I believe we should have only one (1) President, as much as I like Trip and Ninot, this would set a poor precedent for future Presidential elections. If not 2, why not 3? why not a legion of Presidents? why not get all the DIA or UFC to field Presidential candidates, and then pool all their votes to get a majority, and declare they're splitting the Presidency amongst the 10 of them? But we could always pass future legislation to bar such actions.
However, considering that Historian is already a joint venture... we may already have a precedent for allowing co-Presidents. OTOH, dual historians do not conflict with other offices, a dual Presidency may.
Perhaps the first duty of the new administration, whoever that may be, would be to push through some legislation/amendments to clarify such issues.
As it stands, there is no current explicit requirement for a poll in creating an "aide". Public opinion at the time was supportive of unofficial aides. Whoever wins, can legally appoint the other to a special unofficial position, say called "Special Advisor", with duties not in conflict with those of other ministerial offices. Only if the position becomes official - or if it interferes with the existing power structure by overlapping or impinging on the powers and responsibilities of other already existing offices (mainly VP) - would such a position be in danger of being challenged.
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Some semantic suggestions might be helpful here:
If the idea of "co-presidents" sounds dubious, think of the arrangement (however it may be structured) as a "unity government" or a "coalition government."
If that still sits uneasily, we could let one candidate take the tile of president (Ninot, probably, if the numbers hold), and allow the other join his Apolytonian "kitchen cabinet" (a very funny pun, BTW, from U.S. political history).
aka, Unique Unit
Wielder of Weapons of Mass Distraction
I dislike the idea of ministers doing tie-breaking. It will add to the effect of parties. For example, in this election the presidential race is obviously quite close. Now, if you have not voted yet, you may go and vote for all the candidates who are in the same party as who you want to be president, in hopes that they will vote accordingly should there be a tie.
"I used to be a Scotialist, and spent a brief period as a Royalist, but now I'm PC"
-me, discussing my banking history.
Well, aside from the local problems, I would like to see an amendment passing about elections, including saying that non-members are not allowed to vote, and if the results of a vote are contested, non-member votes may be removed (as told by the list).
This is not perfect, however, as those random people might add themselvest our membership simply to vote.
There is much discussion going on in many threads about the nature of the presidential poll and what should or might be done about it. Here is a basic version of what I gather to be serious suggestions.
Nothing should be done. The vote should be accepted no matter how many questions there are about it. Action is only required if they finish tied.
Shared Presidency. As posted by Ninot, and supported by Trip, both candidates share the office of the president in a unity government. This is fairly self explanatory, however there may be some or many unforeseen ambiguities.
Alternating Presidency allowing 1 of the candidates to be president for 2 weeks, at which point he resigns and we accept the other candidate as president for the last 2 weeks of the term.
Recount based on information available to the administrators of the site. The count could be performed by Markos and announced, or we could request the log be released to a selected group of citizens (scrutineers) or we could request that the log be made fully public. The idea would be to find the vote total of only those citizens on the join list prior to the election and use that total to decide the matter. The recount would involve zero discretion. Either the voter was on the list prior to the opening of the poll and the vote is counted, or the voter was not and the vote is discarded.
Emergency Court should be quickly assembled to rule on the election. The court would be assembled with 3 members and would dissolve as soon as they decided a winner of the presidential election. The court would be empowered to request any information available to the administrators of the site and would keep this information confidential. The court would enjoy some discretion in how they arrive at their ruling (for instance, they decide whether to remove non citizen votes or not).
Ministers decide who is awarded the presidency. This has been proposed for the constitution in case of ties. Simply put, all newly elected officials (except the Historians) vote to decide who is to be the president for the next term.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
It might be helpful if people answered a few simple questions here in this thread, and of course add any comment or new ideas you feel appropriate.
Question 1. Should we accept the presidential poll (do nothing) or should we effect a remedy according to one of the suggested plans.
Question 2. Which 1 or 2 of the remedies do you favour as being acceptable. Shared, Alternating, Recount, Emergency Court, or Ministers? The choices are the first word(s) from each of ther options in my previous post. Other, with an explanation is good too.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
1) Recount by someone trusted. I think ballots should remain secret to the public and to the candidates, even if some voters want to make their votes publicly known.
I trust MarkG, but any mod would be fine since they don't have a direct interest in the game and have proven trustworthy enough to maintain privacy. Gramphos would be great too, if he's around.
If, after discounting frivolous votes from non-citizens, it's still a tie:
2) Someone should concede.
3) If no one concedes, repoll. VP takes role of Prez until new one determined.
Unofficial power sharing is fine, officially splitting the Presidency is bad.
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
First I'm glad things have calmed down since last night. I also don't really have strong opinions between the proposed options. ( I dislike Trip and Ninot's proposal, but it might work)
The important thing is that the decision is polled. And the decision is reached through a poll. So pretty much I'm all in favor of whats going on here.
I'll like the idea of only allowing citizens votes to be counted, but I am leery of requiring them to register before voting, as our numbers always rise substantial during voting. We gain new active citizens during this time, which helps our community.
Concerning the presidential vote, I think that the citizens' votes should be taken and that should be used. Which seems to be the general view, but just because thier is a consensus in this thread doesn't mean thier is an overall consensus (some people may currently be unsure, I'm not even 70% sure, and hence be avoiding the debate.) I still think a poll should be taken to decide this.
Another issue is whether the winner should be allowed to appoint an aide. He should; but the aide should not be able to play turns as that is the VP's duty outlined in the constitution.
Tweet
Comment