Discussion was here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112259).


A. The domestic leader/equiv., is responsible for conducting
and leading discussions on provincial boundaries. Final
proposals to be voted upon by the people. All boundaries
must be defined in a timely manner. Provinces with fewer
than 3 cities are run by domestic or equivalent. Governors
are appointed by domestic/equiv. if a province is created
mid-term, and can be subject to a confirmation poll. First province is all known territory and is run immediately by an initial governor.

An article created by stringing together bullet points is bad. In addition, the concerns raised during the first poll (valid ones - even if they weren't posted during the discussion) were not addressed.

Vote NO on this article.

Once again, no proposed poll in the thread. That would have drastically improved the chances of passing, as people could have commented then on the weaknesses.

-- Ravensfire

I hate to be the Mr. Blackwell of Constitutional law, but:

If this was something you just threw on, it looks like you missed! :eek: :cool:

Vote NO so we can get this right. We don't need provincial laws on the first day anyway.

ABSTAIN. I really have no clue, I haven't visited the demogame in months...

I see nothing fundamentally wrong with the proposal. The wording is a bit here/there, and doesn't really set anything in concrete. I'd vote no, but my position is such that I would be compromising the voting process.

"All boundaries must be defined in a timely manner" is open to so much interpretation it isn't worth being there. The law must not be subjective in manner.

Voted NO.

The boundary issue always becomes a big problem, and this is a bit vague. I agree, the rule can be settled during term1, and specific timelines should be part of that rule.

first of all, this mickey mouse article does not hold water.

We also need a mandate to name trans-provincial landmarks or extra-provincial landmarks
needed for map references for those relying on forum info alone.
I therefore suggest that the PINT (Presidential Institution for Names and Titles) covers extra-provincial and trans-provincial geographical features, where governors cover in-provincial features and forward these to PINT.

NO,

It just seems to be poorly written.

<gomer pyle>Surprise, surprise, surprise!</gomer pyle>

The province clause is dead. Long live the province clause!

Link to new discussion thread

Help us create a decent version this time, so the same thing doesn't get tossed out to fail. Again.

-- Ravensfire