Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMENDMENT: Dont let absences slow the game!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    AMENDMENT: Dont let absences slow the game!

    Due to a recent event in the DG I notice something i do not agree in the constitution.

    I thought we should give the democracy game more flexibility on how the missing orders can be handled.

    And i want to give the game more pce by modyfing the Constitution in Article II section 2.I-d.

    Change from
    (d) In case of missing orders for a whole turn from a minister and all his delegates the President may not play on.
    To

    (d) In case of absence of a minister and its delegates in which they are all unreachable be slowing down the game speed for more than a whole day (24 hours) the President may play on this minister behalf.

    Expiring date: 21/01/2003 06:38 GMT
    16
    Yes :b:
    43.75%
    7
    No :q:
    50.00%
    8
    Abstain :confused:
    6.25%
    1

    The poll is expired.

    Last edited by Pedrunn; January 16, 2003, 02:21.
    "Kill a man and you are a murder.
    Kill thousands and you are a conquer.
    Kill all and you are a God!"
     -Jean Rostand
    Tags: None
  • #2
    agreed

    Comment

    • #3
      Firstly, I'd like to have discussed this and secondly NO!!!

      That's why ministers are required to have delegates when they are not around.
      This gives the Pres way too much power, he can just play along like he wants.
      When we discussed this part in the con it was even you Pedrunn, that didn't want to let the pres decide anything on its own.

      After all, the current con is flexible enough - you can play on if you have some missing orders, but if a minister didn't give any for a whole turn, then you can't. Now in the beginning this might slow you down a little but if this amendment is agreed to we'd have totally undemocratic situations later on. The pres could just decide everything himself.

      I say no!
      Last edited by mapfi; January 16, 2003, 07:37.

      Comment

      • #4
        I think mapfi has a good point. When people know they will be absent, they can appoint a delegate. In fact, appointing a delegate to replace me when I'm gone, will probably be my first order of bussiness if I'm elected as Minister of SDT (not that I expect to be gone often, but I want to have all bases covered, in the interest of the game).
        Administrator of WePlayCiv -- Civ5 Info Centre | Forum | Gallery

        Comment

        • #5
          I agree with mapfi on this one – no. Way too much power vested in one person. Doesn’t make for an effective democracy. However, we definitely need to discuss amending the connie to provide for this situation somehow – otherwise one person can spoil it for all of us. Pedrunn, could you rather open a discussion thread?
          If something doesn't feel right, you're not feeling the right thing.

          Comment

          • #6
            well i've cast my vote as yes and for the following reasons:

            1. It will speed up the game when real life gets in the way of a ministers duties.

            2. It doesn't matter if the president goes power mad and does lots of crazy things - he will be accountable by his actions for all time. The citizens will not forget.

            3. It will open up lots of interesting cases for the courts and fuel lots of visits to the Lemuria Cafe for drunken accusations of wrong doing and under hand tactics.

            A real Leader of any nation can get away with alot of things around the framework of accountability to the people who elected them. Look at the real world situation around Iraq today and the reasons being circulated for the current crisis - and the not so obvious reasons. Basically all politicians have the option of dipping their fingers in dirty pies from time to time.
            I say give our President that option as well. We will see how many of our Leadres take the rope being offered.
            'The very basis of the liberal idea – the belief of individual freedom is what causes the chaos' - William Kristol, son of the founder of neo-conservitivism, talking about neo-con ideology and its agenda for you.info here. prove me wrong.

            Bush's Republican=Neo-con for all intent and purpose. be afraid.

            Comment

            • #7
              I agree that this thread should be a discussion thread and not a poll. And in my opinion if a minister and all his delegates are absent then their power fall back to the people. Therefore only the majority of the the people of Lemuria can give him the orders.

              Therefore here is my suggestion for the amendment:

              (d) In case of absence of a minister and its delegates in which they are all unreachable be slowing down the game speed for more than two whole days (48 hours) the President may ask the People of Lemuria for possible orders to play on. This should happen in a discussion thread, that has to be open for at least one day. If the result of the discussion shows that there are more than one possible order an official poll is needed, to allow the people of Lemuria to decide for the best option. If half of the people of Lemuria voted in that poll the president is allowed to continue the game with the orders based on the outcome of the poll.
              That should give us the possibility to continue the game without giving the president to much power and this will only work if the minister is missing for a long period and not just for a short term. And this is the Democratic way to deal with the problem.

              -Martin
              Civ2 military advisor: "No complaints, Sir!"

              Comment

              • #8
                Martin, your talking about a process that takes up several days, at least three, mostly 6. For such an absence, the con requires ministers to appoint delegates. There's no problem at all and this game would run a lot smoother if the ministers did what they are supposed to do.

                For this however, or any change in these articles, there's no need at all. The current con is sufficient.

                Comment

                • #9
                  wow, a tie, guess i shouldnt have abstained, but i still cant make up my mind

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    speaking of slowing down the game, pedrunn's term of office isn't over yet. let's get another round of play in!

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by H Tower
                      speaking of slowing down the game, pedrunn's term of office isn't over yet. let's get another round of play in!
                      is just that I need to find some RL time. Couldnt have been yesterday or today I am going to have a killing exam tomorrow and Cant be tomorrow too. So it will probably be on saturday 8:30 or 9:30 GMT. if not sunday will be. But for sure i will have a final chat before the end of the term to get the game going

                      BTW, this poll is dividing our people isnt it!?!

                      When we discussed this part in the con it was even you Pedrunn, that didn't want to let the pres decide anything on its own.
                      I know but i did not know i was going to be the President

                      Seriously, many of my ideas have changed from that time. Some things just dont happen the way you pictured thay would.
                      "Kill a man and you are a murder.
                      Kill thousands and you are a conquer.
                      Kill all and you are a God!"
                       -Jean Rostand

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        i've got another solution to this problem, but i'm going to present it as part of my entirely revamped version of the CON. it would be pointless to talk about it here since this is an amendment thread, not a discussion thread.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          What's the point of having ministers if you can just ignore them or go on with out them?
                          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Oerdin
                            What's the point of having ministers if you can just ignore them or go on with out them?
                            Hark, the voice of reason speaks!
                            If something doesn't feel right, you're not feeling the right thing.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Oerdin
                              What's the point of having ministers if you can just ignore them or go on with out them?
                              because while it is possible to figure out what the people wish on your own as president for a while, it's not very fun doing all the work yourself. minister's are there to help, but when they become a hindrance you need to be able to move past it without them slowing everything down.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X