Pre-Ammendments Discussion

[Arnelos]

PRE-AMENDMENTS DISCUSSION

We need to stop dumping on the authors of the NewCon and wasting our time whining about the rules as they currently exist. ANY set of rules which have been created and not yet tested on actual, fallible, human beings is going to have growing pains and need adjustment to account for things that were unanticipated. This is entirely natural.

That said, growing pains we are certainly having with the NewCon and some ammendments seem necessary.

--------------------

I think the following ammendments should at least be proposed:

1. Cabinet Members Propose Senate Bills

Allow members of the cabinet to propose bills. The lines in the NewCon giving the FAM exclusive ability to propose Alliances and MPPs are currently problematic, because he can't propose his own senate bill to seek approval (also necessary) for that same proposal. This was the problem I ran into as FAM when proposing the legal MPPs signed during the chat (never mind the illegal ones...).

2. Lighten the restrictions on the FAM for signing agreements in wartime

Make the check on the FAM for signing MPPs and alliances during times of war considerably more lax than during times of peace. When in times of peace, allowing the FAM to sign MPPs and alliances willy-nilly would probably drag the country into war against the wishes of the Senate. During wartime, we're ALREADY at war and the FAM needs considerably more power to sign such agreements on short notice w/o having to take the 3 days to get Senate bills passed.

3. A method for handling the election tie issue

Some ammendment to handle the issue of tied elections.

------------------------

That should, I would think, resolve this for the long-term.

We'll tackle additional growing pains as we experience them. This is entirely natural and we shouldn't be dumping on the people who wrote the constitution (Togas, notyoueither, Apocalypse, and adaMada) for it.

I welcome discussion in this thread dedicated to ACTION regarding actually changing the constitution to bring it into line with what people think would be more workable. You say you don't like the current rules because of the results they caused: THEN GET UP AND CHANGE THEM!

Ammendments need to be discussed, written, and proposed for passage.

So don't just stand there complaining about this whole mess, do something about it

[GodKing]

It is first and foremost a game, to be played for fun and for learning how to be better at this means of having fun. Please let all of us remember this and do our best to let everybody enjoy this game.

This is what I put in another thread...... I find it applicable here as well.

GK

[joncnunn]

Perhaps we can deal with #2 via a bill.

Something like:

A. When an AI we don't have an RoP with places 2+ military units inside our territory, then FAM is authorized to make any MMPs needed for our defense.

B. When an AI declares war on us, then FAM is authorized to make MMPs and Military Alliances against that coutnry as needed for our defense.

The alternate is to stop the game when either A or B occurs.

[Kloreep]

#1 should be fairly simple; I doubt it even needs a prepoll thread. If someone wants to write something up, that would be great. If no one else does, I'll get around to proposing it soon.

There's no reason for #2 to be an amendment; it deals exclusively with senate powers, so a bill will work just fine and will be easier to pass (and remove, if that is ever found necessary). Looks good, joncnunn. All it needs is a prepoll tread.

For #3, I think RPS via PMs to the court has gained a favorable majority in the prepoll thread.

[MrWhereItsAt]

My only real gripe with the NewCon is when we take it all a little TOO seriously, and it hinders the game's progress, or kills the fun for a while.

Perhaps a "let's bend the rules a bit because they aren't meant to be perfectly rigid" clause? Or a poll option to skip some of it when it is felt that doing so was more advantageous than sticking to the letter of the law?

I'm only half joking there.