There are two schools of thought on what the Deputy position entails. One side maintains that the Deputy is the head of the department when the Leader is absent. The other feels that the Deputy is responsible for running the department in the absence of the Leader. These sound similar but are actually very different.

Deputy as head of department - Follows their own lead on all deparmtmental matters. Can disregard Leader's plans in favor of their own. The department can have radical shifts each time control of the department changes.

Deputy as back-up to Leader - Follows the plans the Leader made. Adjusts them based on new circumstance but is responsible for following them as closely as possible. Makes new decisions for items that weren't addressed by the Leader. Department remains more or less on the track set by the Leader at all times.

EDIT: "Absent" is defined as not responding to a poll or Forum request for 36 hours or not being present at the turn chat.

The term absent should probably be defined as well. Absence from a turn chat is far different from absence from the forum for more than a couple days.

Please keep in mind the chaos the first option would cause, and has already caused. If you want to see an example, please see the Province of Istar (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21032&pagenumber=2) thread.

I'm voting yes to this, working on the principle that Leaders should be the ones to set department policy. However I believe that whoever is acting for a department during turn chat should be allowed to alter that policy if there is a drastic change in circumstances which renders it genuinely unviable / suicidal. It can be argued that this ends up as a judgement call with no easily defined conditions, but the safeguard is that if anyone persistently goes against their leader's policy and it is felt by the leader to be unjustified he can have the deputy impeached.

Deputy as head of department - Follows their own lead on all deparmtmental matters. Can disregard Leader's plans in favor of their own. The department can have radical shifts each time control of the department changes

I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats. Since Shaitan posted this poll and eyrei talks of 'chaos' the implication is that I have. I have repeatedly explained the reasons for my actions and do not feel that I disregarded the leader's plans in favor of my own. If this poll is meant to be an affirmation or rejection of my actions then the poll question must certainly be re-worded.

Originally posted by donsig


I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats. Since Shaitan posted this poll and eyrei talks of 'chaos' the implication is that I have. I have repeatedly explained the reasons for my actions and do not feel that I disregarded the leader's plans in favor of my own. If this poll is meant to be an affirmation or rejection of my actions then the poll question must certainly be re-worded.

This poll is mainly to clarify the issue, so that it does not happen again. Your actions did bring the issue to light, but the poll is not aimed directly at you.

Originally posted by donsig


I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats. Since Shaitan posted this poll and eyrei talks of 'chaos' the implication is that I have. I have repeatedly explained the reasons for my actions and do not feel that I disregarded the leader's plans in favor of my own. If this poll is meant to be an affirmation or rejection of my actions then the poll question must certainly be re-worded.
No, I have no desire to get involved in interdepartmental politics. This poll/discussion is the first step towards correcting a problem in the Constitution. No less, no more.

I would like to know if our Foreign Minister and Domestic Leader think that I have acted under this category in the last two turn chats.
My apologies, Donsig. I didn't answer your question in my last post. I was on a brief hiatus and have not yet read the chat logs. I have nothing except heresay to evaluate your actions and it would be premature and unfair for me to do that.

Yet another poll posted by our leaders with no discussion before hand. I thought we weren't going to be railroading any more?

Yes, Donsig. I think they're ponting the finger at you. A subtle "Russia129200" approach maybe? Of course in the politically correct manner.

Again I pretty much agree with Eklektikos. If the Leader has not spelled out their plans on an issue and is "absent" from the chat, and the Deputy is present, the Deputy can make a call to bolster the defense of the nation, or take advantage of a new town site. I wanted to go against Eklektikos' call on an improvement last night to build a defensive unit as it made sense to fortify that border town. But Donsig said no, because the Governor had spelled out his wishes. In the event of the Deputy having to make a decision, it should follow the Department's basic structure, if that can be defined. If no instructions were posted, then the deputy is free to make his own decision. Just like the President if no instructions are posted.

If you Leaders are going to continue to railroad issues that are important only to you, I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities. It's the people you should be concerned about. Not yourselves.

originally posted by eyrei:
This poll is mainly to clarify the issue, so that it does not happen again. Your actions did bring the issue to light, but the poll is not aimed directly at you.

Unless I wrongly disregarded your leadership eyrei there is no issue to clarify. As Eklektikos has pointed out these things boil down to judgement calls and grey areas. They have to be handled on a case to case basis because I think everyone (myself included) will agree that a deputy should follow the leader's lead.

The first grey area is whether the leader has clearly stipulated his or her goals. The second is whether there is enough of a change in circumstances for the deputy to re-evaluate a leader's orders. This poll cannot help to clarify these grey areas.

Originally posted by Cyc
Yet another poll posted by our leaders with no discussion before hand. I thought we weren't going to be railroading any more?

Yes, Donsig. I think they're ponting the finger at you. A subtle "Russia129200" approach maybe? Of course in the politically correct manner.

Again I pretty much agree with Eklektikos. If the Leader has not spelled out their plans on an issue and is "absent" from the chat, and the Deputy is present, the Deputy can make a call to bolster the defense of the nation, or take advantage of a new town site. I wanted to go against Eklektikos' call on an improvement last night to build a defensive unit as it made sense to fortify that border town. But Donsig said no, because the Governor had spelled out his wishes. In the event of the Deputy having to make a decision, it should follow the Department's basic structure, if that can be defined. If now instructions were posted, then the deputy is free to make his own decision. Just like the President if no instructions are posted.

If you Leaders are going to continue to railroad issues that are important only to you, I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities. It's the people you should be concerned about. Not yourselves.

Nothing is being railroaded. The discussion simply took place in another thread, which I mentioned in my first post.

Originally posted by eyrei
The term absent should probably be defined as well. Absence from a turn chat is far different from absence from the forum for more than a couple days.
I've now defined absent in the first post.

Eyrei, I can't believe how you try to buffalo the citizens over and over agin about you railroading issues. YOUR "Province of Istar" thread was a 1 page thread for 3 weeks. This morning you decided to reply to my post (maybe it was to your advantage). It the took 4.5 hours to become a 3 page thread (in the Government sub-forum). Then the discussion went to 5 hours before a poll issued by a Leader who could proclaim it the voice of the people (all 25 of us). I haven't even mentioned that you switched sub-forums, which is a very bad procedure for a Leader to take.

So you don't believe having a 5 hour discussion on a Impeachable issue and then rushing a poll in a different sub-forum (in which most people don't read the original sub-forum) isn't railroading? Get real

Originally posted by eyrei
Nothing is being railroaded. The discussion simply took place in another thread, which I mentioned in my first post.

Just to help clarify things can a link to the discussion thread be posted with every poll?

That will make sure everyone is aware of the same information when voting.

(yes, I'm aware the thread was mentioned, but a link makes it much easier to get to without having to go 'hunting' for it.)

Before I post anything on this matter, I would like to call on all parties involved to think it through clearly since I sense emotions are running high and I feel "knee-jerk" posts would only inflame this issue more.

However I believe that whoever is acting for a department during turn chat should be allowed to alter that policy if there is a drastic change in circumstances which renders it genuinely unviable / suicidal.

I propose that deputies only have the authority to overturn a leader's decision in his absence by calling at least a cabinet vote. It should never really come to this unless there is a huge change in circumstances because leaders and deputies are expected to communicate their views and decisions with each other. The leader's decisions must be followed otherwise.

Originally posted by Cyc
Yet another poll posted by our leaders with no discussion before hand. I thought we weren't going to be railroading any more?

Yes, Donsig. I think they're ponting the finger at you. A subtle "Russia129200" approach maybe? Of course in the politically correct manner.

If you Leaders are going to continue to railroad issues that are important only to you, I think you need to re-evaluate your priorities. It's the people you should be concerned about. Not yourselves.
Okay, first this poll isn't by "our leaders" it's by me. There is no government conspiracy here. There is simply Shaitan the over caffeinated champion of the Constitution. (Call me OC3 for short)

I am not pointing any finger at anybody. I'm taking action to prevent people from pointing fingers in the future.

There is no railroading going on. Railroading would be holding a Council Vote and convincing 4 other peole that my opinon was correct. This is opening a Citizen Poll to get citizen responses and citizen opinions.

Originally posted by Cyc
Eyrei, I can't believe how you try to buffalo the citizens over and over agin about you railroading issues. YOUR "Province of Istar" thread was a 1 page thread for 3 weeks. This morning you decided to reply to my post (maybe it was to your advantage). It the took 4.5 hours to become a 3 page thread (in the Government sub-forum). Then the discussion went to 5 hours before a poll issued by a Leader who could proclaim it the voice of the people (all 25 of us). I haven't even mentioned that you switched sub-forums, which is a very bad procedure for a Leader to take.

So you don't believe having a 5 hour discussion on a Impeachable issue and then rushing a poll in a different sub-forum (in which most people don't read the original sub-forum) isn't railroading? Get real
Eyrie didn't post the poll, nor did he ask me to post the poll. I posted it in the Citizen subforum as that's where Citizen Polls are supposed to go. If you have a problem with the way the poll was posted or handled then direct your criticism to me.

I'll say it over and over, each time I see it. This is railroading. This is one of the reasons I got out of the Goverment, as I saw it was too self-serving.

Originally posted by Zur
I propose that deputies only have the authority to overturn a leader's decision in his absence by calling at least a cabinet vote. It should never really come to this unless there is a huge change in circumstances because leaders and deputies are expected to communicate their views and decisions with each other. The leader's decisions must be followed otherwise.
While I can see the argument in favour of this I disagree. I don't think that departments should have to get the approval of the majority of the council before making emergency changes of policy. Also, what criteria would the council be voting to? Would the decision to allow a change be based on whether they think it's the right thing to do, or whether they think the department leader would think it was the right thing to do? I say leave it up to individual judgment, let the deputy justify his actions with a good explaination to his leader and face the consequences for any abuse of power.

Originally posted by Eklektikos

While I can see the argument in favour of this I disagree. I don't think that departments should have to get the approval of the majority of the council before making emergency changes of policy. Also, what criteria would the council be voting to? Would the decision to allow a change be based on whether they think it's the right thing to do, or whether they think the department leader would think it was the right thing to do? I say leave it up to individual judgment, let the deputy justify his actions with a good explaination to his leader and face the consequences for any abuse of power.
I tend to agree with this as well. The Deputy is in a position of trust and should be able to use his/her judgement unless that trust is betrayed. What would happen if there was an abuse of power though? Should a Leader be able to fire a Deputy? I don't like that idea as it could factionalize the game worse than parties. Maybe call for a vote of confidence?

Since I also have not read the chat log, my comments do not involve whatever issues may have come up yesterday, but I will be reading it today. My thoughts on the role of the deputies in general might be somewhat unique, since I was a deputy to Cyc, and am now a cabinet leader.

As deputy, I saw it as my job to assist the leader when I could, make suggestions, and if needed fill in when he was not at a turn chat (never happened with Cyc!) or in the forums. If I disagreed with him on an issue (as happened on the pop-rushing libraries issue), I restricted myself to posting suggestions, and clarified that they were not the official policy of the Culture Department, merely my personal opinion as a citizen. If I would have filled in for Cyc in a turn chat, I would not have advocating rushing, because it was his position, (and the official department philosophy as I saw it), that we would not rush improvements.

When the second term started, and I was the Culture Minister, then I felt it was my perogative to start polls on the cities I felt needed rushed. With the polls decided, I attended that first chat to make sure that they were implemented. However, if I couldn't attend, I would expect whoever my deputy was (in this case, Punkbass), to still inform the president of the poll decisions and rush the libraries. Because these were poll results, I don't think there would be much leeway not to.

On other turn chats, I try to post my priorities, so my deputy or rep can implement my policies. For example, I say that I want to rush a library in XTown for 150 gold, then build other libraries in A, B, and C towns as possible. I would expect my deputy to rush the library in X, since it was specific budget request, and could be done first turn. But if during the chat, town B goes into unrest, and my deputy decides changing the library to a temple would be in the best interests of the nation, I would not have a problem with that, since it is a reaction to that situation. If the deputy, however, changed A and C to temples, just because they don't like libraries, I would feel that would be out of line, and my recourse would be to move for impeachment.

ok, Shaitan. I'll direct my comments towards you. Not that it makes a difference. It's still the same principle. You're both Leaders (two of the most powerful 3), you both vote the same, etc. This is railroading, no matter who posts "the poll".

While I can see the argument in favour of this I disagree. I don't think that departments should have to get the approval of the majority of the council before making emergency changes of policy. Also, what criteria would the council be voting to? Would the decision to allow a change be based on whether they think it's the right thing to do, or whether they think the department leader would think it was the right thing to do? I say leave it up to individual judgment, let the deputy justify his actions with a good explaination to his leader and face the consequences for any abuse of power.

Voting what they think the department leader would do does not work in all circumstances since they may not know him/her well enough to vote conscientiously in a new cabinet. Isn't voting (in a cabinet sense) supposed to express departmental opinion? Then they should vote according to how their department feels about it. (Extend "department" to "province" for governors & "all citizens" for Members-at-Large.)

Your option is interesting, but I'm not clear what you are proposing. "Face the consequences", to whom? The leader only, the cabinet, all citizens? If you could think of a practical way to implement it, it would certainly be a viable way.

Originally posted by Cyc
ok, Shaitan. I'll direct my comments towards you. Not that it makes a difference. It's still the same principle. You're both Leaders (two of the most powerful 3), you both vote the same, etc. This is railroading, no matter who posts "the poll".
Then let's agree to disagree. I think this poll is a perfectly valid method to invite opinion and discussion from the citizens. You don't. No need to dwell on it.

Now, back to the topic of the thread - You seem to favor the Deputy as a fill-in for the Leader as opposed to a Leader that gets occasional control. Is this so?

No, you got wrong again Shaitan. you've taken my post and innocently twisted it to suite your needs. how thoughtful.

Originally posted by Cyc
No, you got wrong again Shaitan. you've taken my post and innocently twisted it to suite your needs. how thoughtful.
I had started a post to refute this. I even had the quote from Cyc's first post where he said exactly what I thought he had said. Then I realized that this entire conversation was WAY too reminicent of the troll assaults that drove me off of usenet many years ago. In the interest of keeping this Forum a place that I'd like to be I'm going to drop this whole line and ignore future references to it.

This is absurd. Talk of a government conspiracy and railroading issues, when a poll was posted? Isn't that exactly the opposite? The people will decide on this issue, and their wishes will be followed.

The reason this poll was posted was, I believe, to clear up an issue that had arisen so that it doesn't arise again. There has been no talk of impeachment throughout this entire discussion (both threads) by myself or Shaitan. I, in fact, stated earlier that I did not consider donsig's actions impeachable. I do not wish to continue discussion of that particular instance. The only reason I even continue posting on this topic is because it needs to be clarified and resolved. I would much rather put it to rest.

The accusations of government conspiracy and such are baseless, and therefore have no place here without proof. This is the place for discussion about the powers of a deputy leader during the absence of the leader. Let's keep it that way.

This 'discussion' has gotten out of hand for the topic it was intended to discuss.

It brings up a valid issue that sounds like it should be discussed. IMHO, the simple fact that this thread is in the 'Citizens' forum makes it where it is not trying to be 'pushed' through. It seems to be trying to let everyone give their opinion; which is the point of the game.

If this thread gets into direct attacks against another person(s), it will be closed and people may be given 'time off' to think about it.

If anybody has direct issues they need discussed with another player, PM them or me.

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
If anybody has direct issues they need discussed with another player, PM them or me.

First of all I want everyone to know that I have not been offended at all by anyone's posts and I have not meant to offend anyone in any of mine. If I have then I offer my apologies. I do think this debate should be held in the public view though.

Though I have not been offended by any posts there have been accusations regarding me and I have been answering them. Somehow the debate on my specific actions during two turn chats has turned into this general poll.

The debate originated here concerning gubernatorial powers. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21614&perpage=20&pagenumber=1)

The specific debate out my actions started here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21032&pagenumber=1)

The May 10 and 12 chat logs are here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20459)

The May 10 turn instructions thread is here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22224)

The May 12 turn instructions are here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22457)

The presidential thread is here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21696&perpage=20&pagenumber=2)

As far as I know these are the links pertaining to this discussion.

Originally posted by donsig
I do think this debate should be held in the public view though.

I very much agree, that is why the thread is still open. ;)

What I meant for PMing people or myself is to avoid any personal attacks in the forums, not to hide the discussion.

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
This 'discussion' has gotten out of hand for the topic it was intended to discuss.

This poll was initiated by Shaitan as a result of a debate between eyrei and myself concerning Eyr building pikemen. (I've posted all the relevant links in the post right before this one so I'm not making links in this post. ) The debate over the build evolved into one about 'what should deputies do'.

If the posts are read it should be clear that I have been saying all along that I re-evaluated the build in Eyr in light of a request by the military leader. I made a judgement call that happened to go against what eyrei wanted. I tried to explain the circumstances and my reasoning. Rather than address what actually happened this general poll was posted. This poll implies that I changed eyrei's build queue simply because I disagree with his policies. That is an implication I must respond to.

I must also defend Cyc for bringing up the railroading issue. Shaitan posted this poll without even reading the turn chat logs to see what the debate was really about.
This is an important issue because I feel as though deputies are about to be hamstrung merely because I excerised my judgement.

And that is a very poorly worded poll. Not your usual style and finesse, Shaitan. Sorry for the soapbox, but someone has to protect the rights of the citizenry.

And BTW, most of the real cause of the problem here has been in discussion in the main forum under the sticky "sub-forum discusion" or something like that. been going on for days. If each leader posts in there "Next Turn" thread, this won't be a problem. Governors can still just post in their Province thread.

Granted, I don't know that a poll is appropriate at this time, but how else are we to see what everyone thinks of this issue?

If this were a discussion about donsigs actions, then I don't think a poll would be appropriate.

However, it seems that this is a poll to try and clearly define the roles in the game so as to try and avoid disagreements like this again. It doesn't require any real background of the prior happenings to have an opinion of what the roles of Deputies should be. If the majority of people agree on a choice, then that is the nature of the game.

My opinion of the whole situation is that the Gov. ideas should be used as a 'guideline'. Unless something drastic comes up, they should be followed for the most part. If the defense minister wanted to get more pikemen built, then he should have worked with the Governors to get that done, it should not be a fairly exclusive decision by a few people as to where to build them. However, since the province queues were not known of, the acting parties did what they felt was best without having direction otherwise.

What was done in the past does not seem like it is anything worth pursuing further. However, it shoud be decided what actions should be followed in the future to try and avoid it in the future.

So, it seems we have a couple of issues that need clarification:

Where/When are provinces queues to be posted?

Are deputies responsible to basically follow the queues, or make their own decisions? This would largely depend on an underlying question; how are the queues decided upon? If they are decided by the Governor (basically) alone, then it is more of an arbitrary thing. If the people have given their consent to the queue, then it should try to be attempted to be followed (unless an emergency happens).

If the people agree on what the role of deputies should be, then I don't really see how it is 'railroading' the issue. :confused:

BTW, thank you for the links, donsig. It made it much easier to try and get an idea of what's going on.

originally post by the Duke of Marlbrough
Granted, I don't know that a poll is appropriate at this time, but how else are we to see what everyone thinks of this issue?

My point is that everyone agrees that deputies should follow the leader's lead. Even I agree to that. We do not need a poll to figure that out. We also don't need a poll to figure out that deputies should be allowed to change things under certain circumstances. The whole arguement is about where that line is. This poll will not help us determine where that line is and I fear it will only hamstring a deputy's authority in the future.

Since I feel this is all about where that line is then the actions that triggered the debate are certainly relevant.

The poll should be about whether the line was crossed or not.

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
My opinion of the whole situation is that the Gov. ideas should be used as a 'guideline'. Unless something drastic comes up, they should be followed for the most part.

I must disagree with this interpretation. The constitution states that governors control the build queues in their provinces. (Section F.) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)

There are constitutional methods in place for overturning governor's choices. I think these are pretty much agreed upon as this was the subject of the debate that eventually led to the deputy debate. Treating governor's ideas as guidelines undermines all the work put into defining the role of governors. It would be a shame to do this right now since the governors' have just begun their work. (This remark is not intended as a slight to eyrei who has worked as a governor all along.)
By letting the governors do their job the turn chat should be speeded up because the debates about what should be built in our cities will be done in the forums rather than the turn chats.

Originally posted by donsig


I must disagree with this interpretation. The constitution states that governors control the build queues in their provinces. (Section F.) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)
I absolutely agree with Donsig here. There are only 3 ways a Governor can be overruled on his build decisions - when we're being invaded the Military Leader can build military buildings/units, the Cultural Leader can build cultural buildings when needed and the Pres can call a Council Vote to get his/her improvement built. Other than those the Governor's decision is sacrosanct, that's why it's such a powerful position.

Originally posted by donsig
The poll should be about whether the line was crossed or not.

How can it be about whether the line was crossed or not, when there is no line yet? The prior happenings seem to be just an unfortunate mis-communication.

How would we establish where the line is then?


Section F: Governors and Provinces

Article 1: A governor controls the production (building queues) of the cities within a province. A governor's production decision can be overturned by a council vote or by the Military Leader during time of invasion.

I don't see how that is really so different from my opinion (which doesn't really count for much). Unless you're saying that they should be followed to the letter (with changes being possible as explained in the constitution) rather than just generally....?

Is that correct?

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
I don't see how that is really so different from my opinion (which doesn't really count for much). Unless you're saying that they should be followed to the letter (with changes being possible as explained in the constitution) rather than just generally....?

Is that correct?
Yup, that's it Duke. I think the Governors' decisions should be final except in those specific instances where the Constitution gives another official the power to overrule them.

Originally posted by Shaitan

Yup, that's it Duke. I think the Governors' decisions should be final except in those specific instances where the Constitution gives another official the power to overrule them.
That I'm with Shaitan on this goes without saying :D

Another 'yes' Duke. We debated that one through to general agreement.:D

I fear the deputy debate will not end in such agreement since there are too many grey areas.

Ok. So, basically, it is agreed that the Governors decisions should be followed to the letter, unless changed by one of the methods stated in the constituion.

Therefore, I would think that the Deputy cannot change the decisions by themselves. It is clearly stated in the constitution which methods can change the Governors decisions, and a deputy being in 'charge' is not one of them. Granted, the deputy acts in place of the governor when the governor is not present, but he is not the governor, so he cannot change the decisions that were already made.

So, we have agreed where the 'line' is now. The deputy should act on the governors behalf and follow their decisions.

Now, it seems to me the main reason for this poll was to try and avoid a mistake from happening in the future. So, again, it seems like the real thing that needs to get worked out is the logistics behind the governors queues. As long as the Deputy knows what the governor has decided, he can act on behalf of that information.

So, it seems we just need to establish a protocol for the governors to post their decisions and perhaps increase the communication a governor has with their deputy, right?

Duke: Our four governors have each started a provincial thread in the government sub-forum. Build queues are currently posted in these provincial threads, with the exception of Istar. Eyrei has posted istar's build queue directly in the May 14 turn chat instructions thread. I suggest the other governors also post their build queues to that thread. Having them all in one thread will greatly speed turn chat start up.:)

The relevant links are listed below. I would point out that Eklektikos' builds were queued up during the last turn chat.

The Normany thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22478)

The Ameri thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22507)

The Asphinxia thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22447)

May 14 turn chat instructions. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22479)

Yep. I'm aware of the threads. :)

So, having the build queues being easily found solves the problems that are being discussed here then, right?

Originally posted by Duke of Marlbrough
Ok. So, basically, it is agreed that the Governors decisions should be followed to the letter, unless changed by one of the methods stated in the constituion.

Therefore, I would think that the Deputy cannot change the decisions by themselves. It is clearly stated in the constitution which methods can change the Governors decisions, and a deputy being in 'charge' is not one of them. Granted, the deputy acts in place of the governor when the governor is not present, but he is not the governor, so he cannot change the decisions that were already made.

So, we have agreed where the 'line' is now. The deputy should act on the governors behalf and follow their decisions.

Now, it seems to me the main reason for this poll was to try and avoid a mistake from happening in the future.

I re-read the debate in the Istar thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21032) and things are a bit more complex than your summary Duke. In general what you have said above is correct but there is the special case of the domestic leader being the governor of the first province. The question to be resolved is this:

Is the Deputy Domestic Leader acting governor of the first province in the absence of the Domestic Leader?

I assumed all along the answer to this question is 'yes' and acted accordingly.

I would point out that once a governor declares a build queue he or she has the right to change it as he or she sees fit (subject of course to constitutional over-rides). This is another reason why I think governor's should be present and voiced during turn chat. If something comes up during play a governor can simply authorize a change in build queue without the formality of a spot vote.

Forcing governors to have their messages relayed through other voiced members of the government means that what a governor says will not be in the turn chat logs.

Originally posted by donsig
Is the Deputy Domestic Leader acting governor of the first province in the absence of the Domestic Leader?

I assumed all along the answer to this question is 'yes' and acted accordingly.

So I guess this is really what we may need a poll about then.

I agree that it is much better that the Governor be in the chat, but when that is not possible, it seems like it shoudl fall to the deputy to handle the province.

I'll be back in about an hour and a half with more...:)

I don't have time to post comments right now (screaming baby and then a pillow with my name on it) but I wanted to clear up some confusion right quick. The last several posts have referred to Governors and their Deputies. Governors don't have deputies. The Deputies we're discussing are Departmental Deputies.

If this poll was based off of the discussion that was going on about the Governors build queue not being followed and then a poll about should a deputy follow the leaders plans, then, in this special case, it seems that everyone seemed to agree that the Governor of the first province (who is also Domestic Leader) had a deputy.

Like donsig said, the real question seems to be; is the deputy Domestic Leader also the deputy governor of the first province?

It wouldn't seem that a Governor would need a deputy, since his build queues should be suffiencent direction through the few turns that are played out during a chat. You guys need to clarify that point I guess.

So, is it agreed that this poll is not really necessary then?

And, if everybody seems to agree on this issue, why was this thread getting so bad that I had to step in to calm it down? ;)

The reason it turned sour for me, Duke, was simply a matter of poll procedure by Department Leaders. If the poll had been put together in this poorly worded manner with no previous discussion by an ordinary citizen with no political gain, I probably wouldn't have said much except voicing my opinion. We should now address the issue of Poll Standards to resolve the problems that seem to key on Government sponored polls, or any polls for that matter.

I would propose any poll started by or sponsored by any Leader, Department, or other Government official first have a discussion thread posted introducing the subject and giving a rough outline of the options, locations, or point of views. In having a discussion thread for the subject, all citizens can examine the items, listen to different points of view and make up their mind in calm and informed manner. I say this because I see too many polls pushed on people who have to make a quick decision when they may not understand the issue or know all their options. You start a discussion with a discussion, not a poll. You start a poll with a poll.
I have started several discussions knowing that a poll is on the way. This is to get opinions of the populace so accurate and well defined options can be listed in the poll. This Procedure of requiring a poll to be preceded by a discussion thread should definitely be applied to Government/Leader/Department Polls. It would be an automatic watchdog mechinism to safeguard the citizenry.

Originally posted by Cyc
The reason it turned sour for me, Duke, was simply a matter of poll procedure by Department Leaders. If the poll had been put together in this poorly worded manner with no previous discussion by an ordinary citizen with no political gain, I probably wouldn't have said much except voicing my opinion. We should now address the issue of Poll Standards to resolve the problems that seem to key on Government sponored polls, or any polls for that matter.

I would propose any poll started by or sponsored by any Leader, Department, or other Government official first have a discussion thread posted introducing the subject and giving a rough outline of the options, locations, or point of views. In having a discussion thread for the subject, all citizens can examine the items, listen to different points of view and make up their mind in calm and informed manner. I say this because I see too many polls pushed on people who have to make a quick decision when they may not understand the issue or know all their options. You start a discussion with a discussion, not a poll. You start a poll with a poll.
I have started several discussions knowing that a poll is on the way. This is to get opinions of the populace so accurate and well defined options can be listed in the poll. This Procedure of requiring a poll to be preceded by a discussion thread should definitely be applied to Government/Leader/Department Polls. It would be an automatic watchdog mechinism to safeguard the citizenry.

I have to disagree here. Forcing a prior discussion to every poll will take far too long, and will delay any or all actions that normally involve a poll. Unless we separate turns by 4 days or so, this is just not feasible. I think everyone agrees that a poll must be up at least 36 hours before the turn chat, and if you add another 24 hours to that for prior discussion, we are almost at three days.

As far as the domestic leader's deputy becoming governor in the leader's absence, I also have to disagree. The deputy domestic leader is the deputy governor for the first province in the absence of the domestic leader. If build queues are posted, they should be followed except in an emergency. The reason I started this debate about my deputy's actions was because I do not consider a peacetime request by the military leader, an emergency. I understand that donsig may not have seen my build queues, as they were posted in the presidential thread. Keep in mind that these were posted before we had the turn instructions threads. I would like to reiterate my suggestion that anyone who ends up playing a turn should check the president's thread, not to find build queues, but to see if the president posted any instructions, and if there is other information in there that may be useful.

We need to define when and to what extent a deputy can override the leader's instructions in the event that the leader is absent from the turn chat. I would say that only in very dire circumstances can these instructions be overridden. A forum absence, where the leader has not posted instructions is a completely different story. In this situation, the deputy must make all decisions for that department. That is why we have deputies.

Finally, I would like to apologize to donsig that this became such a huge, very public debate. I have to admit, I was quite upset as that build queue in Eyr had been ignored for the last two turns. Someone had to have read it. I think Cyc did mention during the chat that I wanted an aqueduct. Anyway, that is in the past, and should remain there. Now, it is for us to define the powers and responsibilities of the deputy leaders. The paragraph before this states my opinion on the matter.

I don't mind the huge public debate eyrei.

The gist of your earlier post eyrei seems to be:

1) the deputy domestic leader is the deputy governor of the first province

2) deputy leaders or deputy governors must follow the leader's or governor's build queues unless there is an emergency

I agree with 1 and disagree with 2. I think deputies should be allowed to exercise their judgement to take advantage of any opportunities that may arise. I also think that as new information or new requests from other parts of the government are made the deputy must use his or her judgement in dealing with the altered situations.

Also, the point was raised earlier in this thread about who decides when it is appropriate for the deputy to take initiative. Who would decide that it is an emergency? We cannot assume that everyone will know an emergency when they see one.

It might be easiest to simply compile a list of emergencies. I will start:

Military Emergencies

1. A stack of 5 or more units, regardless of foreign relations, within striking range of a city. This constitutes an emergency for that city, and the military leader could override the governors build queue. Also, with the agreement of the domestic department representative, or a spot cabinet vote, the military department (or whoever is playing the game), could rush this unit.

2. Declaration of war by an immediate neighbor. This constitutes an emergency in all cities that border that nation. Also, if it is decided that our military is insufficient to deal with the threat, it would become a nationwide emergency.

3. Declaration of war by two or more nations, provided they are on the same continent. This constitutes and emergency for all border cities.

Cultural Emergency

1. A border moves in a way that is not favorable to us. This would allow the cultural leader to override the governors build queue in the closest city to start a cultural improvement.

2. A border moves, depriving us of a luxury or resource. This would allow the cultural department to change the build queue, and rush the improvement, provide the cabinet does not override.

3. A city has more than 2 tiles of workable area that are within another civs cultural borders. This city is therefore in danger of culture-flipping, and the culture leader could override the governors build queue.

Those, I believe, are examples of the emergencies mentioned in the constitution.

I agree that those are all emergencies, I just don't think it's possible to categorize all of the possible things that could be considered emergencies. This has to be kept very simple, which limits what we can use for checks and balances.

Proposal: Deputies cannot change a Leader's plans unless they have support. Example - an extra resource is hooked up that was intended for trade to China but it turns out Rome will offer more. The Deputy is running the show. The Deputy wants to overrule the Leader's plan of selling the resource to China as this new opportunity is better. The Deputy requests an override support from the Pres (or Designated Player) and at least one other person with Council Authority (Leader or Deputy, not a Chat Rep). This would mean that at least 2 elected officials agree with the Deputy's decision but would not require something as big as a Council Spot Vote. This is more along the lines of a "Proposed, Seconded, Carried". It gives the Deputy freedom for creative thinking and reacting to new circumstances while providing a check against flippant changes.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Shaitan
I agree that those are all emergencies, I just don't think it's possible to categorize all of the possible things that could be considered emergencies. This has to be kept very simple, which limits what we can use for checks and balances.

Proposal: Deputies cannot change a Leader's plans unless they have support. Example - an extra resource is hooked up that was intended for trade to China but it turns out Rome will offer more. The Deputy is running the show. The Deputy wants to overrule the Leader's plan of selling the resource to China as this new opportunity is better. The Deputy requests an override support from the Pres (or Designated Player) and at least one other person with Council Authority (Leader or Deputy, not a Chat Rep). This would mean that at least 2 elected officials agree with the Deputy's decision.

Thoughts?

The only problem with this, is that it gives too much power to those who can attend the turn chat. I think, with some work, it would be possible to identify almost everything that is considered an emergency. If something that is unlisted comes up, the turn can simply be stopped to discuss. We could also limit the discussion to build queues and rushing.

The example you listed is common sense. No leader would not want the new deal, unless the reason for the original one was to secure good relations with China. This information would probably be posted in the turn instructions thread.

originally posted by eyrei:
It might be easiest to simply compile a list of emergencies. I will start:

Eyrei we were discussing when a deputy could would be able to use his or her judgement in the absence of a leader. Your proposals are about leaders over-riding governors - a proccess that is already well defined by the constitution.

The military leader can only over-ride a governor's build queue in time of invasion which is defined by as "(when there are troops in our territory from a country we are at war with)".

"The Cultural leader can override a governor's decisions for the construction of cultural improvement's."

"A governor's production decision can be overturned by a council vote ..."

The constitution is here. The quotes above are from sections E & F. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)

Okay, let's back up a step. We need to answer a different question first.

Is a Deputy only allowed to overrule the Leader's plan when it's an emergency or should they be able to exercise their own discretion for all in-game occurences? My example above wasn't an emergency but just about everybody would agree (with no other information provided such as appeasing China) that the Deputy's desire for a change of plan is justified and proper. Should changes like this be allowed?

Originally posted by donsig
originally posted by eyrei:


Eyrei we were discussing when a deputy could would be able to use his or her judgement in the absence of a leader. Your proposals are about leaders over-riding governors - a proccess that is already well defined by the constitution.

The military leader can only over-ride a governor's build queue in time of invasion which is defined by as "(when there are troops in our territory from a country we are at war with)".

"The Cultural leader can override a governor's decisions for the construction of cultural improvement's."

"A governor's production decision can be overturned by a council vote ..."

The constitution is here. The quotes above are from sections E & F. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19271)

True, but we are particularly talking about the domestic department, which includes build queues and when they can be changed.

The reason I am listing emergencies, is that we are trying to define that grey area to some extent, where a deputy can change the directives of the leader. We need to make this area less grey, and more black and white. Emergencies would definately allow the deputy to make changes.

Hmmm. I thought we changed the wording of that part about the cultural leader override. It gives broad power for this to be done at any time.... Sorry, that's another topic.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Okay, let's back up a step. We need to answer a different question first.

Is a Deputy only allowed to overrule the Leader's plan when it's an emergency or should they be able to exercise their own discretion for all in-game occurences? My example above wasn't an emergency but just about everybody would agree (with no other information provided such as appeasing China) that the Deputy's desire for a change of plan is justified and proper. Should changes like this be allowed?

The deputy should have a very good reason, and the change should only be in the application of a general principle. The general principle itself should not be changed. For instance trading to a different civ for a better price, is still making the trade, so the principle is the same.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is very little room for interpretation with build queues, and they should only be changed in emergencies. If a governor or the domestic leader says build an aqueduct, unless the deputy can figure out a way to build an aqueduct faster, the city should continue producing an aqueduct.

Originally posted by eyrei
Hmmm. I thought we changed the wording of that part about the cultural leader override. It gives broad power for this to be done at any time.... Sorry, that's another topic.
I'd say a fair limiter for this would be that the city does not control its full 20 tile radius (due to lack of border expansion or foreign border encroachment).

Originally posted by eyrei


The deputy should have a very good reason, and the change should only be in the application of a general principle. The general principle itself should not be changed. For instance trading to a different civ for a better price, is still making the trade, so the principle is the same.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is very little room for interpretation with build queues, and they should only be changed in emergencies. If a governor or the domestic leader says build an aqueduct, unless the deputy can figure out a way to build an aqueduct faster, the city should continue producing an aqueduct.
This could be fixed easily by making the Governor aspect of the Domestic Department separate from the other duties. In other words, the Domestic Deputy is not the Deputy Governor of the capital province. This puts the Domestic Leader's build cues into the same boat as the other governors - it would require a Council Vote initiated by the Pres (Designated Player) to override them.

Originally posted by Shaitan

This could be fixed easily by making the Governor aspect of the Domestic Department separate from the other duties. In other words, the Domestic Deputy is not the Deputy Governor of the capital province. This puts the Domestic Leader's build cues into the same boat as the other governors - it would require a Council Vote initiated by the Pres (Designated Player) to override them.

I was actually just considering this. What I would propose, is that, plus making it clear that should any governor not post build queues, it is the responsibility of the domestic leader, or the deputy domestic leader to designate these. The old build queues should obviously be checked to make sure that everything in them has been completed. Alternatively, it could be made solely the responsibility of the deputy domestic leader to designate the build queues for absent governors.

Originally posted by eyrei
...plus making it clear that should any governor not post build queues, it is the responsibility of the domestic leader, or the deputy domestic leader to designate these...
This currently falls under the Pres/Designated Player. Does it really need to be reassigned? There's always going to be a DP in every chat, that's not necessarily so for any individual department.

Originally posted by Shaitan

This currently falls under the Pres/Designated Player. Does it really need to be reassigned? There's always going to be a DP in every chat, that's not necessarily so for any individual department.

Ah. I had missed that. I always assumed it fell within the domestic department.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I don't think that departments should have to get the approval of the majority of the council before making emergency changes of policy. Also, what criteria would the council be voting to? Would the decision to allow a change be based on whether they think it's the right thing to do, or whether they think the department leader would think it was the right thing to do? I say leave it up to individual judgment, let the deputy justify his actions with a good explaination to his leader and face the consequences for any abuse of power.

These are some of the wisest words in this thread. We must put our trust in our leaders to lead and in our deputies to do the 'right' thing when the leader is absent. We are heading into the first turn chat where we have build queues in place. I don't think we should change the system until we see if it actually works.

originally posted by Shaitan:
This could be fixed easily by making the Governor aspect of the Domestic Department separate from the other duties. In other words, the Domestic Deputy is not the Deputy Governor of the capital province. This puts the Domestic Leader's build cues into the same boat as the other governors - it would require a Council Vote initiated by the Pres (Designated Player) to override them.

I think being governor of the capitol province is an integral part of the domestic leader's job and I don't think it is appropriate to have a deputy who is really only deputy to part of the leader's duties. Since the domestic leader / governor of the first province is also the default governor of new provinces it seems inefficient to say the deputy domestic leader does not have gubernatorial powers in the domestic leader's absence.

Originally posted by donsig
I think being governor of the capitol province is an integral part of the domestic leader's job and I don't think it is appropriate to have a deputy who is really only deputy to part of the leader's duties. Since the domestic leader / governor of the first province is also the default governor of new provinces it seems inefficient to say the deputy domestic leader does not have gubernatorial powers in the domestic leader's absence.
I have always seen this as the Domestic Leader wearing two hats with a gubernatorial position in addition to the Domestic responsibilities.

Originally posted by donsig





I think being governor of the capitol province is an integral part of the domestic leader's job and I don't think it is appropriate to have a deputy who is really only deputy to part of the leader's duties. Since the domestic leader / governor of the first province is also the default governor of new provinces it seems inefficient to say the deputy domestic leader does not have gubernatorial powers in the domestic leader's absence.

It also seems almost silly to have a deputy governor for the first province, when there are none for the other provinces. That seems to imply that the domestic leader will be a less competent governor than any of the others. The constitution could be interpreted either way. It says that the domestic leader is also the governor of the first province. It could be said that the person who is domestic leader is also the governor of the first province. It is not necessarily a function of the domestic department. Since it is not necessary for any other governor to have a deputy, this is the way I think it should be interpreted.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Okay, let's back up a step. We need to answer a different question first.

Is a Deputy only allowed to overrule the Leader's plan when it's an emergency or should they be able to exercise their own discretion for all in-game occurences? My example above wasn't an emergency but just about everybody would agree (with no other information provided such as appeasing China) that the Deputy's desire for a change of plan is justified and proper. Should changes like this be allowed?

In clear emergencies it is obvious that the deputy can over-ride the leader. In common sense examples as Shaitain used it is also obvious that the deputy can use his or her initiative. These are the black and white of the issue at hand not the grey.

Eyrei says a deputy should have a very good reason to change a build queue. This is the grey area. I think I had a good reason to keep Eyr building pikemen while eyrei thinks I did not have a good reason. I do not think we can list all the 'good reasons', let alone agree on what they are, so we must leave room for deputies to make judgements.

I suggest those interested in this debate to review the May 10 turn chat log. The question of building harbors came up. That is another case of me stepping in as acting governor and exercising judgement. It also falls into the grey area.

I understand there have been calls to leave the past in the past but I really think it would be more productive to examine grey areas that have actually come up rather than hypothetical one.

Originally posted by eyrei


It also seems almost silly to have a deputy governor for the first province, when there are none for the other provinces. That seems to imply that the domestic leader will be a less competent governor than any of the others. The constitution could be interpreted either way. It says that the domestic leader is also the governor of the first province. It could be said that the person who is domestic leader is also the governor of the first province. It is not necessarily a function of the domestic department. Since it is not necessary for any other governor to have a deputy, this is the way I think it should be interpreted.
Question: Why was the governorship of the first province attached to the role of domestic leader in the first place? I'd be interested to know what the original rationale for this was, since I don't really understand why things are organised in this way. :confused:

Originally posted by Eklektikos

Question: Why was the governorship of the first province attached to the role of domestic leader in the first place? I'd be interested to know what the original rationale for this was, since I don't really understand why things are organised in this way. :confused:

Only the Duke of Marlborough or the Duck of Flanders would truly be able to answer that. I imagine it had to do with cohesiveness in the beginning of the game. While the country is still small, it is quite possible and more efficient for one person to control all of the domestic department responsibilities as well as the build queues. If you had a domestic leader and a governor of all of the cities, who disagreed on everything, the expansion of the empire would flounder. It also allows the domestic leader to lead by example for the other governors as the game progresses. Further, as the domestic department is in charge of wonder building, it gives the department choice cities to build wonders.

Originally posted by donsig




Eyrei says a deputy should have a very good reason to change a build queue. This is the grey area. I think I had a good reason to keep Eyr building pikemen while eyrei thinks I did not have a good reason. I do not think we can list all the 'good reasons', let alone agree on what they are, so we must leave room for deputies to make judgements.



Actually, I was referring to any deputy changing a leaders instructions, not to build queues. I consider these an entirely different matter. They should only be changed following the instructions set out in the constitution.

Originally posted by eyrei
Actually, I was referring to any deputy changing a leaders instructions, not to build queues. I consider these an entirely different matter. They should only be changed following the instructions set out in the constitution.

Then we are back where the Duke left uswhen he said:
Like donsig said, the real question seems to be; is the deputy Domestic Leader also the deputy governor of the first province?

Shaitan and eyrei have answered 'no' and I have answered 'yes'.

Eklektikos has asked for more input and we hope the Duck or Duke will provide it.:)

Originally posted by eyrei
Only the Duke of Marlborough or the Duck of Flanders would truly be able to answer that. I imagine it had to do with cohesiveness in the beginning of the game. While the country is still small, it is quite possible and more efficient for one person to control all of the domestic department responsibilities as well as the build queues. If you had a domestic leader and a governor of all of the cities, who disagreed on everything, the expansion of the empire would flounder. It also allows the domestic leader to lead by example for the other governors as the game progresses. Further, as the domestic department is in charge of wonder building, it gives the department choice cities to build wonders.

Sure sounds like an integral part of the domestic leader's job to me.

We've broken down into 3 issues.

[list=1]
Should the Domestic Department control the governance of the Capital Province?
Is the Deputy Domestic Leader also the Deputy Governor of the Capital Province?
When is a Deputy allowed to override a Leader's plans?
[/list=1]

There's also the briefly raised question of what the limits of Cultural override on building queues should be.

Question 1 has a 50% chance of answering question 2.

Question 3 is a massive grey area that we are no closer to answering now than we were yesterday when this all started.

I propose the following:
Poll for questions 1 and 2 (separately but referencing each other).
Continue trying to figure out #3.
Start a discussion on the Cultural override.

I'm also going to go ahead and post the Constitutional Amendment Proposal. I was going to wait until we had a concensus here to wrap this in as well but I think this may need a goodly amount of time.

I just put another pot of coffee on.:lol:

Shaitan, what amendment are you talking about? I didn't know one was in the works...

Also, I propose you post in this thread what your proposed poll questions and options are for your proposed polls on questions one and two? Hey, that's a triple 'propose' sentence!:)

Originally posted by Shaitan
We've broken down into 3 issues.

[list=1]
Should the Domestic Department control the governance of the Capital Province?
Is the Deputy Domestic Leader also the Deputy Governor of the Capital Province?
When is a Deputy allowed to override a Leader's plans?
[/list=1]

I propose the following:
Poll for questions 1 and 2 (separately but referencing each other).
Continue trying to figure out #3.
Start a discussion on the Cultural override.
I suggest that these polls be phrased as follows -

Should the Capital province:[list=a]
be governed under the current system?
Have a specifically elected governor, like the other provinces?
[/list=a]

Is the Capital Province:[list=a]
governed by the Domestic Leader?
governed by the Domestic Department?
[/list=a]

My understanding is:
1. The Domestic Leader is the governor of the first province for the reasons that you guys have already stated (ease of starting the game). I'll PM DOF and ask him to confirm this since this whole game is his brain child.

2. As far as changing build queues for Governors, I think the constitution spells out the basic elements that allow this. They may need to be refined, but it is fairly clear that certain conditions need to be present for any changes to happen. I don't know if the Deputy Domestic Leader should also be considered the Deputy Governor of the first province. No other Governor has a Deputy and there are already proceedures in place for when a Governor is not present in the chat and has no posted build queue.

3. I think Deputies should use the Leaders plans as a general guideline and can make adjustments to them if a need arises. I would also hope that the Leader and Deputy would have discussed the reasons behind the decisions so that they both are on the same page. Using the earlier example, if the Leaders intent is to improve relations with China, and not to get the most money for the trade, the Deputy needs to be aware of that. That would preclude the Deputy from assuming that he should go for whichever option provides the most money and do the trade for the reasons intended.

Remember, these are just my thoughts. I am not making a ruling or anything, since I have no power to change the game on my own. ;)

Thank you all for showing why you were elected officials in the game and have earned the support of the people. :)

The amendment proposal is a bunch of stuff I've been accumulating (department voices, instruction threads, etc) instead of doing Council Votes for each individually.

I think the questions posted should suffice for the polls.

Poll 1:
Should the Domestic Department control the governance of the Capital Province?
Yes/No/Abstain
(Point back to this thread and summarize what we've discussed so far.)

Poll 2:
Should the Deputy Domestic Leader also be the Deputy Governor of the Capital Province?
Yes/No/Abstain
(Point back to this thread and summarize what we've discussed so far.)

Keep it simple to Yes/No/Abstain. I can't think of any response comments that wouldn't color the voting one way or another.

EDIT: Cancel that. I like Eklektikos' suggestions better.

Eklektikos' suggestion sounds good. While these polls would normally fall within the realm of the domestic department, I have an obvious opinion, so someone else should post them.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Should the Capital province:[list=a]
be governed under the current system?
Have a specifically elected governor, like the other provinces?
[/list=a]



Maybe we should also have an option that the Domestic Leader is the governor of the 1st province up to a certain point in the game, when control then passes to a separate governor.

I don't think the two polls should be posted together as one poll will influence the other. "Should the Domestic Department control the governance of the Capital Province?" is much different from "Should the Domestic Leader control the governance of the Capital Province? "

We should decide one then decide the other. I think we need some more input before we actually post the polls especially with the recent debate about polls that is within this debate.

I would point out that there is no hurry to decide this (unlike the pressing need we have to decide on the forbidden palace).;)

Originally posted by Zur


Maybe we should also have an option that the Domestic Leader is the governor of the 1st province up to a certain point in the game, when control then passes to a separate governor.
For example up until the point when the empire is divided into two provinces? I can see that implementation working, provided of course the move to provinces comes at a set point... say: x number of cities.

I think this 3rd option should be discussed fully before a poll is posted on the matter.

Originally posted by donsig
I don't think the two polls should be posted together as one poll will influence the other. "Should the Domestic Department control the governance of the Capital Province?" is much different from "Should the Domestic Leader control the governance of the Capital Province? "

We should decide one then decide the other. I think we need some more input before we actually post the polls especially with the recent debate about polls that is within this debate.

I would point out that there is no hurry to decide this (unlike the pressing need we have to decide on the forbidden palace).;)

I agree entirely. The people need to decide what the current system is before they can vote to change or keep it.

This isn't a time-critical issue so we should take the time to explore it to the full before finalising the options to be polled on. That way we should come up with the best solution possible and not have to debate this again in the future. :D

"Should the Domestic Department control the governance of the Capital Province?"

I prefer it like that for various reason's amongst them ease of starting and the fact that the "core" province is most of the times the most productive of all province's. (good for wonder building)

"Is the Deputy Domestic Leader also the Deputy Governor of the Capital Province?"
In any case a deputy always takes over the respected leader's duty's in case of his absence.

"When is a Deputy allowed to override a Leader's plans?"

When unsufficiant information has been givven to him to execute his job properly ,as thus forcing him to make unexpected decission's himself.

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
[B"Is the Deputy Domestic Leader also the Deputy Governor of the Capital Province?"
In any case a deputy always takes over the respected leader's duty's in case of his absence.

[/B]

What do you mean by absence here, Duck? In the case of a forum absence, this has to be the case. A forum absence, I believe, can be defined as the instructions not being posted. What do you think as far as an absence from the turn chat?

I agree that only the one poll should be posted at this time. Depending on the outcome of this poll the 2nd might not even be necessary.

I'll post it and then put a link here.

EDIT: Link to the poll. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22552)

I have started a separate thread to discuss the Cultural override issue briefly brought up in this thread. LINK (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22597)

A poll has been started regarding the gubernatorial duties of the Domestic Deputy as discussed in this thread. The poll can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22708).

A poll has been started to determine if the Domestic Department will ALWAYS govern the Capital Province, as debated in this thread. LINK (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22710)