When starting?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Aggie
MWIA, i suggest we go with suggestion #2. For the first part of the game it will do. As far as the constitution goes lets have 5 positons Pres,VP,Domestic,Foreign,SMC
However, may I suggest that the Prez be a "strong Pres" until at least monarchy. He and all the other must get elected, but other than that can do as desired. This doesn't have the checks and balances of a true "constitution", but in the end elections are the true check and balance on a leader. I actually would propose the following.
1) Until monarchy other elected postion are advisory
2) During Monarchy the leader must take their advice but they can do as they desire.
3) In republic we basically bring in a full constitution.
I do suggest a no confidence vote as an option to remove a leader in the early game, kind of a coup.
Aggie

A nice idea, Aggie, and one I would hope works early on.

I had feared a negative reaction from those in favour of a strong Constitution from the start, but it appears as if no-one is opposing ideas along your lines. So perhaps this is what we do - start with your idea, but refer to the Constitution we have as the guide for actions. Polls must be placed up for decisions, but we are allowed some leeway in the case of an emergency. A no-confidence poll option should be available against Government officials who are deemed to not be doing their jobs, and by the time we have the option of a more representative government we develop a more representative legal document governing how to run our nation.

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
Uh, panag, I don't think ANYONE wants to vote on whether we move the worker north or east, or some such. It's just too inefficient and stupid.

hi ,

no , thats a bit to far , but remember "Uber Isle" , .....


but what you take as example ( worker ) has nothing to do with facing a despot for an x number of turns , .....

ones again , we should be a democrazy from day one

have a nice day

[GodKing]

I see no objections to the April 27th start, time to be determined by the new prez. I would assume.

[Kloreep]

Democracy from the start. Doesn't matter whether or not we have a Con from the start, but this game should live up to its name.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Democracy is good. But what exactly do you mean when you say "Democracy"? Is it the sort we have been using? Because there is no way in hell we ever poll every single troop movement and build queue - that's far too inefficient and pointless. In the early goings we can do a lot more polling on such things, but soon enough it will become impossible. Please tell us what you mean when you say "Democracy".

[Kloreep]

Yes, I was a little vague, sorry. I meant to say I want the powers distributed throughout the government from the start; it's okay to give the Prez power, but I see no reason to concentrate all the power on a few people, as I see Aggie's monarchy suggestion. If anything, the early game is when we can poll the most and have the power most spread out, since not only will decisions not only come by the truckload as they will when we have 25+ cities, but those decisions will be important and should be decided on by the team.

Of course, a good Prez will pay attention to the people anyway, but I'd like to see this game run under the same basic system as the last. Citizen polls should be binding, etc.

Anyway, reading your post again MWIA, I realize you aren't suggesting anything more radical than no Con, which I can go along with, so I'll stop standing on a soapbox made of air now.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Of course. This is certainly my intention, and I hope the intention of the 1st Government as well. If elected President ( ) I will ensure that the poeple have much of the say in our earliest days. There is no reason to prevent them from doing so - if I wanted to rule alone as Despot I could do so with my own Single Player games. Trying to tie together the needs of many is far more challenging, and far more interesting.

[Aggie]

Kloreep, I agree that any leader must listen to the people. I just am not crazy about codifying this idea. When I first came to this game when the Demogame had first started I was all gungho on a formalized constitution with checks and balances. But as I played I realized that in reality there was nobody here who would abuse their position and thus all these rules were not only too cumbersome but downright irritating. For example, the only possible impeachment case occured not because somebody(me) did something to hurt the game or community but because somebody made a common sense decision, which almost all supported. But as I said I believe any leader must think of what the people desire.
Aggie

[Panag]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Democracy is good. But what exactly do you mean when you say "Democracy"? Is it the sort we have been using? Because there is no way in hell we ever poll every single troop movement and build queue - that's far too inefficient and pointless. In the early goings we can do a lot more polling on such things, but soon enough it will become impossible. Please tell us what you mean when you say "Democracy".

hi ,

who is asking to poll every single troop movement

maybe the first couple of warriors or so when conflicting intrests come up ( one wants to move to the left , the other to the right ) but even that is not needed , ....

have a nice day