Formalizing the regions, along with the role of the "deputies".

[adaMada]

History Guy,

The beauty of GodKing's proposal is that it's very flexiable. If you are elected City Planner, and you want to play with those rules (such as each gov. must rase a standing army and calling them 'provincial governor') then you can. On the other hand, If I'm elected City Planner, and I want to do everything myself, I can do that too. (Just an example -- I quite like the Govs system, and have no desire to be City Planner ). This way, things are totally flexable -- a city planner can have one person take on one provence and do the rest himself, assign them all out as GodKing as done, or even assign all but one and do that one himself. Flexability . .

-- adaMada

[History Guy]

Well, perhaps, but I think that a standing army is necessary, and if overlooked could prove disastrous in years to come.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Yes, I agree that NOT formalizing allows more flexibility. And I propose we let the city planner determine the regions/names if they want to name the regions are delegate their naming to the regional administrators so be it. (History Guy may run for city planner just to name all the regions. )

This versitility should be quite useful as we get closer to the Modern Age and more and more cities require more decisions.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by History Guy
Well, perhaps, but I think that a standing army is necessary, and if overlooked could prove disastrous in years to come.

Oh, I agree, and I think that the standing army's a very good idea (one I wish I'd thought of myself, in fact).

But this amendment is designed to give power, not take it away. If you mandate a standing army, then the CP will not be able to adapt. For instance, we probably won't have much military on Uber Isle till it's colonized, at which point we'll start working on the Military side of things.

Having said that, I do recommend that each CP does use the Standing Army that History Guy proposed, and I promise to bug the next CP to try to have it in affect in at least most of our provinces by the end of next term .

-- adaMada

[History Guy]

Mr. Farb, you bring up something that seems to me a very attractive idea...city planner, eh? Hah hah hah...

Vice-Minister, thank you indeed. I think that this standing army is necessary. We wouldn't want to be caught with a group of swordsmen breaking into our provinces in a surprise attack when all we have got are a group of spearmen, one in each city. For that reason and others, I think that a standing army is necessary.

[caesarqbear]

The problem with not formalizing is that it becomes hard to make a map of the regions/provinces. Plus, if different names and terminology and thrown around, everyone will get confussed
I think we need a little formalization. Besides, what are governments for if not to gerrymander!

[adaMada]

Yea, I'm not propsing we change the names for each cityplanner -- I'd like it if they stayed what they are now, or at least didn't change more than once per Era -- but I think that some things should remain fluid.

For roleplaying purposes, though, it wouldn't be bad if one common name was decided on for the govs and provs. I wouldn't have any objection to it, anyway...

-- adaMada

[adaMada]

*bump*

A day or two left to go...

-- adaMada

[E_T]

Make titles reflect government style

Make the regional area titles reflect the style of government that is currently in place.

i.e.
Despotism - Region (or some other more approprate word)
Monarcy - Provences (sp?)
Republic - ??
Democracy - State
Communism - Protectorate

They should be different to help differncate between the eras. The Govenor's title would also reflect the area's title type, i.e. Protectorate General for the regional govenor while under a communistic regime

What do you think?

[adaMada]

Re: Make titles reflect government style

Originally posted by E_T
Make the regional area titles reflect the style of government that is currently in place.

i.e.
Despotism - Region (or some other more approprate word)
Monarcy - Provences (sp?)
Republic - ??
Democracy - State
Communism - Protectorate

They should be different to help differncate between the eras. The Govenor's title would also reflect the area's title type, i.e. Protectorate General for the regional govenor while under a communistic regime

What do you think?

Wouldn't be a bad idea at all for roleplaying purposes.

I'd suggest that the next City Planner decide on a naming scheme, and that that scheme be basically kept for the time being.

-- adaMada

[civman2000]

One change to your suggestion for calling them by different names under different governmnets:
Communism: SSR

[Harovan]

The idea of having governors is good in general, but I criticize the way they were implemented in the just ending term (without a poll or public discussion, just as despotic decision).

As for the names of the provinces, Godkings are ok. As for Republic, I would take the term "Province" here as well, why should not both Monarchy and Republic have provinces? IIRC the Romans called their conquered territories also provinces.

Civman2000, there have been more communist states than only the USSR.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The idea of having governors is good in general, but I criticize the way they were implemented in the just ending term (without a poll or public discussion, just as despotic decision).

Well, we were in Despotism..............

BTW, all this talk of deputies and I still don't know who the Sheriff is???

[Reddawg]

Something I thought of regarding all this, that I think would be sort of important to have, is an order of prestige or precidence within the regions. Obviously Mingapulco and it's governor come first, and at this point I believe ÃŽle de France would come last. It could be determined either by the age of the province or the size of it, but it would be used functionally to determine right of succesion with the administration.