Razing: Opinion Poll & Discussion

[Shiber]

I would not have ordered the razing of Hamburg until the entire population was turned into slaves. I have already discussed this with E_T and he has given me the reasons behind his order, which were valid, but I was still not convinced. Eventually we agreed that we disagree.
It is obvious from what I've said that I gave my vote to option #2. I did not vote for any of the other options (yes/no to razing in the future) because I think each case must be discussed independantly.
I have nothing else to say on this matter.

[Aidun]

The same option I chose. Shiber is right, we mustn't already decide about the other cities as we cannot look into the future.

[Aggie]

For all this discussion let us not forget, that in the end most certainly, Hamburg would have ended up as a city of 1 or 2 due to unhappiness and starvation. Except for the fact that we did it immediately this is little different than when we reduced the French and Persian cities to size 1 or when we eliminated them outright and we can start using the city immediately(remember you can't rush temple's with resistance). This is something we will soon see more of since with large size cities and drafting we will inherit unhappiness that will be better dealt with by eliminating the city. In the end it is the SMC's call and I think we should accept it and not tie his hands. If you don't like it show it in the next elections, but bills that reduce the flexibility of the SMC are not wise.
Aggie

[Panag]

Originally posted by Aidun
The same option I chose. Shiber is right, we mustn't already decide about the other cities as we cannot look into the future.

hi ,

that is true , but it would nice to see we have some kind of plan when the time is there , .......

have a nice day

[Shiber]

Panag has a point. While the SMC may do as he wishes with newly-conquered cities (if I remember the Con correctly), it would sure be nice if any actions consisting of abandoning cities had senate approval.

Is there enough support on this matter to propose a bill that forces the government to have senate approval for the abandoning of cities or towns with say, 3 pop or more?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
Panag has a point. While the SMC may do as he wishes with newly-conquered cities (if I remember the Con correctly), it would sure be nice if any actions consisting of abandoning cities had senate approval.

Is there enough support on this matter to propose a bill that forces the government to have senate approval for the abandoning of cities or towns with say, 3 pop or more?

hi ,

we need to look at each city before we go in , the SMC had a valid point when he mentioned that the city was very close to the capital , .....

the best thing to do is to have settlers ready in advance and ones those cities are razed we just make new cities in great spots , .... that solution would be the best , ....

have a nice day

[E_T]

Already planned for..

I do not think that we will need to do such things to Hannover or Cologne.

E_T

[DAVOUT]

During wars, the government is practically a War Cabinet coordinating the war effort of the Nation. This is where a veto right could be given : the War Cabinet could veto the SMC project of razing a city. It is absolutely unreasonnable to interrupt a military campaign for getting the Senate approval of a military decision. The conduct of war cant afford the democratic process.

[Shiber]

There's no reason to interrupt a turnchat with things that can be planned ahead many turns ahead.
We can plan ahead for every city in Germany, and in the worst case, if something unexpected pops up during the turnchat the attendants can override the decision if a certain majority for doing so is present.

[DAVOUT]

The veto can also be given ahead. As for democratic decisions in a turnchat, it is a joke.

[Shiber]

There's gotta be a solution to this.
Maybe if we pass a bill that denies the government the power to abandon a city if the senate has decided in an official poll that that city may not be abandoned (a decision that applies only to the next turnchat and expires once the turnchat is over).

[Aggie]

I totally oppose such a bill, which by the way MUST be an admendment. Let the SMC do the job, if you don't like it vote or run against him in the next election.
Aggie

[Shiber]

Now that you put it that way, I see that you're right. After all the SMC was elected by the senate to make these and other decisions. The members of the senate know what powers they are vesting the SMC with when they elect him.

[Aidun]

Originally posted by Shiber
Now that you put it that way, I see that you're right. After all the SMC was elected by the senate to make these and other decisions. The members of the senate know what powers they are vesting the SMC with when they elect him.

Keep in mind though that what you're saying is no argument to not to change the CoL. Senate members do know what powers they are vesting the SMC when electing him. The Senate has but the right to change the CoL when it considers it to be needed. that does not depend, and should not depend, on the election of the SMC.
I think the Senate should not be given any right to approve, but only to advice. It depends then on the SMC himself to choose to follow the advice or not, with the risk not be be re-elected.

Aidun

[Nolan]

It is the beauty of the democratic system that it keeps the elected members in line, the purpose of political affiliation then becomes one of showing what decisions the member will make based on the party they join instead of having to explain there opinion to a base of independents, that is why I feel we need a more moderate imperialist party that can realistically take on the DIA, with policy and membership, as currently most parties are a bit extreme for any showing of mass support.

Regards