This thread is to focus discussion on the executive branch, mostly how many advisors and their functions.

My proposal (slightly modified from DG4, and also modified somewhat from the constitution general discussion thread)

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials.
1. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic and cultural
initiatives, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade and Technology shall be
responsible for all tech acquisition and trade
initiatives, as prescribed by law.
5. The Minister of Finance and Labor shall be responsible
for the allocation of monies in all forms except as part
of trades which fall under the authority of the Minister
of Trade and Technology; and for prioritization of
worker tasks and assignment of workers to tasks.


This example was provided by Epimethius.

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, as well as
the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Misister of Technology shall be
responsible for all tech acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.
7. The President, and all his Ministers, are elected on a
regular basis by the National Assembly, and may be
recalled by that body, to be replaced by a deputy.



This one was provided by Ravensfire

Article H. Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and
implementing the will of the People. It is headed by the
President who shall take direction from a Council of 5
Leaders and from other elected and appointed officials via
the game session instruction thread.

The President shall be responsible for establishing the
game play schedule, uses of Great Leaders, conducting
discussions on worker actions, and any matter not covered
by another elected official.

The Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible determining
city placement, settler movement, provincial borders,
construction of Great and Small Wonders, serving as
Governor for any city not controlled by a Governor,
monitoring overall cultural and happiness levels and
coordinate the efforts of Governors on National Projects.

The Minister of Finance is responsible for the slider
settings and approving all uses of cash.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for matters
involving non-trade treaties with foreign nations and all
non-technology espionage activities.

The Minister of Defense is responsible for all military
strategy and troop activities.

The Minister of Trade and Technology is responsible for all
technology acquisitions (including through steals) and
trade initiatives.

The President and each Minister shall determine any
policies and procedures needed to carry out their duties.

i believe ravensfire is best, because of 2 reasons:
1. Epimethius left off The Finace Minister and broke up too much stuff
2. Rf has the president in charge of workers, which I believe to be good

Governors should be part of the executive branch as well.

Governors should be part of the executive branch as well.
Why is that?

Revised version:

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The
president is responsible for worker distribution, as advised
by his ministers
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, as well as
the distribution of funds (slider settings), as
prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Misister of Technology shall be responsible for
all tech acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace, naming of cities, and the
construction of wonders.
7. The President, and all his Ministers, are elected on a
regular basis by the National Assembly, and may be
recalled by that body, to be replaced by a deputy.
8. Governors, who will be elected each term by their
constituants, are responsible for the city production
queues and labourer placement within their assigned
province.

Governor are executive as they actually carry out (execute) things, like the ministers do. They are local executive, rather than national.

I have to say Ravensfire is good too....

Ravensfire is the most detailed one, clearly marking each Minister's duty. Epimethius' breaks the executive branch into too many parts.

The point of mine is that it divides the branch into a number of diverse parts for a wide range of people, from imcompentant and lazy (Culture) to hard working and experianced (Domestic), rather than depending on a large number of experianced and committed people, which would result in the same people holding the same offices for a while. I could try clarifying things further, though.

The point of mine is that it divides the branch into a number of diverse parts for a wide range of people, from imcompentant and lazy (Culture) to hard working and experianced (Domestic), rather than depending on a large number of experianced and committed people, which would result in the same people holding the same offices for a while. I could try clarifying things further, though.

Careful there, one of our founding members started off in Culture, and was among the most hard working and capable citizens we've had.

I know, I want to go for Culture too. I guess Tech would be easier. Just decide what to research.

Governors should be part of the executive branch as well.

I don't agree. I believe that governors should not be part of the executive branch as their tasks fall under the jurisdiction of the minister of Internal Affairs. Therefore I think that the governors should be part of the ministry of Internal Affairs rather than the executive counsel. That way there can be a lot more communication between the governors and ministry of internal affairs. For example if the minister wants to build the Pyramids in a certain city, he should approach the governor of that province and should talk about the possibility of that. Also can interprovincial discussions be chaired by the minister of Internal Affairs.

Careful there, one of our founding members started off in Culture, and was among the most hard working and capable citizens we've had.
He does have a bit of a point though. Probably 80% or higher of who was in office in DGIV had been players in previous Democracy Games. We do need to give new players the chance to show their skills (or errors).

From Ravensfire's entry:
The Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible determining
city placement, settler movement, provincial borders,
construction of Great and Small Wonders, serving as
Governor for any city not controlled by a Governor,
monitoring overall cultural and happiness levels and
coordinate the efforts of Governors on National Projects.I'd like to have included in this some rule on having buildqueues (which are set by the Governors) approved or disapproved by the MIA. Especially (or only) in "National Projects".

In DG3 and DG4 some "National Projects" were: 'the size-12-plan', 'huge military buildup', 'Space Race' and some others. Unfortunately some governors chose their own path, which hampered us.
Random idea: MIA can propose to call something a "national Program" which the citizens get to vote on. If something is called "NAtional Program", then the MIA has the power to over-rule Governors buildqueues who aren't contributing.

That sounds very good.:) The MIA should be able to overrule governors as he can see the broad, national perspective while the governor is mostly concerned more with his own province.

From Ravensfire's entry:
I'd like to have included in this some rule on having buildqueues (which are set by the Governors) approved or disapproved by the MIA. Especially (or only) in "National Projects".

In DG3 and DG4 some "National Projects" were: 'the size-12-plan', 'huge military buildup', 'Space Race' and some others. Unfortunately some governors chose their own path, which hampered us.
Random idea: MIA can propose to call something a "national Program" which the citizens get to vote on. If something is called "NAtional Program", then the MIA has the power to over-rule Governors buildqueues who aren't contributing.

Is this needed? I don't think so. It's redundant if we use the laws that already exist, and enforce them.

From our Constitution, we require all leaders to follow the will of the people. If we have a poll for a national project that clearly defines the will of the people, posted by a leader who normally would coordinate/run that type of project, wouldn't a governor (or another leader) be violating their duty to support the will of the people?

In general, I despise allowing officials to override build queues. It's a power that is easily abused, and is insulting to the leader who got overridden. Personally, you override a queue of mine once, it's yours from then on. Our officials should be able to persuade through reason that a queue should be changed. If the instructions from a leader do not reflect the will of the people, call them on it, or call the Judiciary on it.

Don't allow overrides. It's not right. It's not polite. It's not democratic.

-- Ravensfire

Raven: I agree, but not overriding them forces the DP and the nation to do things against their will. If city A is supposed to be building the FP, but the Governor instructs to build a unit instead (misread, slip-of-the-mind, wrong copy-paste, stubborn Gov), a CC is to be held.
That has several nasty consequences; either the DP follows the instructions or the chat is stopped before it even begins.
We get a flood of CC's. DG 4 has shown that CC's aren't dealt with quickly enough.
The Judiciary gets to do too much work no-one is waiting for.
The legal mumbo-jumbo takes a too dominant position in the game, forcing players who aren't into that to leave (ok it will attract lawyer-type players).

Why not turn it around; correcting the alleged-offender and let him go to court if he feels wrongly treated?

I am envisioning this as a discussion between the MIA and the Governors who should build what; with comments from the Citizens.
I am only talking about "national programmes", not ordinary things. If the nation really wants something, it shouldn't be blocked by a Governor. The Governor setting the buildqueues is the most un-democratic part of the DG; I'd like to see that becoming more democratic. Perhaps my way isn't the best way; but it is a start.

From Ravensfire's entry:
I'd like to have included in this some rule on having buildqueues (which are set by the Governors) approved or disapproved by the MIA. Especially (or only) in "National Projects".

In DG3 and DG4 some "National Projects" were: 'the size-12-plan', 'huge military buildup', 'Space Race' and some others. Unfortunately some governors chose their own path, which hampered us.
Random idea: MIA can propose to call something a "national Program" which the citizens get to vote on. If something is called "NAtional Program", then the MIA has the power to over-rule Governors buildqueues who aren't contributing.
I agree. With governors that I will not name, I had hell when I asked for military buildups against Babylon in our first war with them when I was the Minister of Defense. This is something that should be included as if governors do not do what they should do that is the good of the state (and its people) then there should be the ability for someone to ovveride them.

We had over-rides in DG1 and they caused more problems than they solved. Let's not take another step back. Governors like every other leader are bound by the constitution to follow the *will of the people*. I agree that if they don't do what they're supposed to then there should be recourse to get them in line with the *will of the people*. We must be careful though. Just because the Military Leader wants more military units and a governor doesn't comply does not necessarily mean the governor is flouting the *will of the people*. Let's remember that the peple are quite capable of asking the military leader to do one thing and the governors to do another. What we need is not over-ride capabilities but a judiciary that could make rulings and post appropriate game play instructions to enforce said rulings. If the military leader thinks a governor is not building units when he should then the military leader should be able to take the issue to the judiciary and get a quick ruling as to whether the governor is right or wrong.

Why is that?

Sarevok is asking why Governors should be in the executive branch. Well, ere else would you put them? The Judicial branch? The Legislative branch? An entirely new branch?

It seems to me that their function is executive in nature and therefore they should be in the executive branch.

We had over-rides in DG1 and they caused more problems than they solved. Let's not take another step back. Governors like every other leader are bound by the constitution to follow the *will of the people*. I agree that if they don't do what they're supposed to then there should be recourse to get them in line with the *will of the people*. We must be careful though. Just because the Military Leader wants more military units and a governor doesn't comply does not necessarily mean the governor is flouting the *will of the people*. Let's remember that the peple are quite capable of asking the military leader to do one thing and the governors to do another. What we need is not over-ride capabilities but a judiciary that could make rulings and post appropriate game play instructions to enforce said rulings. If the military leader thinks a governor is not building units when he should then the military leader should be able to take the issue to the judiciary and get a quick ruling as to whether the governor is right or wrong.
If we are fighting for our lives against Babylon and we need units yet the governor decides that temples is more important, he deserves to be sacked. We were lucky to hold Babylon off with the forces we had, let alone take the offensive and take those luxuries. There has to be some sort of way that the governors can be overriden in order to go for absolute needs. This sort of "absolute need" would almost always be a demand for military units for a ongoing war. There is no place for a governor to put Fanatica at risk by not aiding his nation when the need was absolutely dire.

Sarevok is asking why Governors should be in the executive branch. Well, ere else would you put them? The Judicial branch? The Legislative branch? An entirely new branch?

It seems to me that their function is executive in nature and therefore they should be in the executive branch.

I agree with this, and in RL Governors are usually the chief executive of their State/Province/Territory. The only reason Governors were in the legislative to begin with was to be members of the Senate. Now that we have abolished the Senate (unless someone manages to get it added back in) there is no need to have the anachronism.

The question is how high in the executive to put them: in the second tier with all the ministers, or below the MIA (or MDA, should mine get chosen ;) ).

EDIT: Hundredth Post! :goodjob:

Article D need not specify the hierarchy but to answer your question, governors should NOT be subordinate to any other leader.

Article D need not specify the hierarchy but to answer your question, governors should NOT be subordinate to any other leader.
I agree with you on this one. They should not be "under" someone, but the MIA should have the ability to fill any instructions not done by Governors. Also, if the governor has made instructions not good for the times (if we are at war and the governor of our best province decides to build culture) then there should be a way to change that in the TC by a vote in the TC.

BTW, is the CoC still the same?

the MIA, should be able to overrule any governor's instructions after discussion and/or a poll

The question is how high in the executive to put them: in the second tier with all the ministers, or below the MIA (or MDA, should mine get chosen ;) ).

EDIT: Hundredth Post! :goodjob:

On 1st reading I thought this meant where in the CoC. Then scanned some replies and realized it might mean subordinate, as in under the direction of. No, we definitely want the governors to be equal to the ministers / advisors.

In the CoC, we should stick with the previous list, which had governors after ministers.

On 1st reading I thought this meant where in the CoC. Then scanned some replies and realized it might mean subordinate, as in under the direction of. No, we definitely want the governors to be equal to the ministers / advisors.

In the CoC, we should stick with the previous list, which had governors after ministers.
Deputies were after the ministers. Governors were not on the list at all.

Deputies weren't on the list either ;)

Deputies weren't on the list either ;)
err... I was thinking advisors. Youre right, they werent on the CoC but neither were governors.

I think Epimethius' is the best, personally. It might not be detailed, but not everyone here is articulate, and we shouldn't base rules on who's the most articulate legal writer. All we need to do is expand on it a bit. It's a nice ground-work.

I think Epimethius' is the best, personally. It might not be detailed, but not everyone here is articulate, and we shouldn't base rules on who's the most articulate legal writer. All we need to do is expand on it a bit. It's a nice ground-work.
I agree with CT on this, it is the rules that matter and if they are clear and show future-effectiveness rather than if it looks nice or is filled with complex wording.

Well, if you want I bet I could through together a more legalese version. I once wrote a resolution for a hat tax that was great, so I figure I could work on that. But it seems to me that one of the problems with the constitution last time was complexity, so perhaps if we simply put things in basic terms but didn't try to infringe on eachother's juristiction, things would work best.

People finally like one of my ideas. :p

I agree with you on this one. They should not be "under" someone, but the MIA should have the ability to fill any instructions not done by Governors. Also, if the governor has made instructions not good for the times (if we are at war and the governor of our best province decides to build culture) then there should be a way to change that in the TC by a vote in the TC.

No, the MIA should not be able to step in and fill build queues. The MIA has enough to do.

And (this may come as a surprise) I don't think it would be wise to allow those at the chat to deicde if a governor's queues *are wise for the times* and give them power to change the queues as they see fit. If a governor posts queues that are inappropriate in someone's eyes then that someone can post in the appropriate provincial thread and try to resolve the issue that way. If the governor is ignoring citizen polls, etc. then a CC could be filed. There is no need to made changes during the game play session.

the MIA, should be able to overrule any governor's instructions after discussion and/or a poll

No, the MIA should NOT be able to do this. If an override system is really needed then we should take a look at our judiciary and use it to make overrides. Wouldn't it be nice if we could go to the judiciary when we saw a problem with a posted instruction? Wouldn't it be nice to say to the judiciary, this instruction is illegal and here's why it is illegal and have the judiciary make a swift ruling on whether the instruction is or is not illegal. IF found illegal then the judiciary could post an instruction rectifying the problem. How nice would that be? Resolving an issue proactively rather than reactively via a PI/CC?

How nice would that be people?

I think Epimethius' is the best, personally. It might not be detailed, but not everyone here is articulate, and we shouldn't base rules on who's the most articulate legal writer. All we need to do is expand on it a bit. It's a nice ground-work.

What do you base this on CT? I don't really see much difference in the base rules espoused by the various proposals. Am I missing something?

Why can't we just use the the article from the DG IV constitution and add governors? We're not amking the COC part of the article are we?

What do you base this on CT? I don't really see much difference in the base rules espoused by the various proposals. Am I missing something?

Why can't we just use the the article from the DG IV constitution and add governors? We're not amking the COC part of the article are we?
why are you so angry that CT supports Epimethius' article? What is the big deal?

As for the judiciary dealing with problems, the judiciary is way too damn slow to be effective at all Rik's CC was in Term 1 and it was never resolved. That is way too slow and you want the changes to be made by them? Im sorry, but that is inefficiency at its worst.

why are you so angry that CT supports Epimethius' article? What is the big deal?

As for the judiciary dealing with problems, the judiciary is way too damn slow to be effective at all Rik's CC was in Term 1 and it was never resolved. That is way too slow and you want the changes to be made by them? Im sorry, but that is inefficiency at its worst.

Who said I was angry? I asked her (what seems to me to be an appropriate) question. I don't see a difference in the base rules of the various proposals. Do you?

The judiciary need not be so slow. That was a function of the rules covering the judiciary in DG IV. The judiciary was much quicker uner previous demogames because it operated under different rules. We could set things up so that the DG V demogame judiciary would be much faster. For one thing if we invest the judiciary with the power to post game play instructions under certain conditions we would attract citizens to the job. Someone might actually want to sit on the bench for a change. Since we're talking about the need for quick rulings we could we could let a single justice make the ruling. We could empower the CJ with the authority to hear all cases while we could divide responsibility among the associate justices. One AJ could be authorized to haer build queue cases involving governor's instructions while the other could hear cases involving leader's instructions, or something along those lines.

The point is we should decide how we want things to work and then make the rules to bring that about.

I think donsigs idea to let the Judiciary correct the buildqueues when needed is quite good. Of course it would require that the Judiciary work at a decent speed, but I think we could manage that.

I think donsigs idea to let the Judiciary correct the buildqueues when needed is quite good. Of course it would require that the Judiciary work at a decent speed, but I think we could manage that.
But when did the judiciary specialize in build queues? Never. They could make terrible decisions that could lead us to ruin!

Who said I was angry? I asked her (what seems to me to be an appropriate) question. I don't see a difference in the base rules of the various proposals. Do you?


Well, you see, mine has six ministers of varying importance, the other have a few (I think four) of all high importance. So there is a bit of a difference. ;)

Well, you see, mine has six ministers of varying importance, the other have a few (I think four) of all high importance. So there is a bit of a difference. ;)
Ultimately, there needs to be some sort of ballance of power.

But when did the judiciary specialize in build queues? Never. They could make terrible decisions that could lead us to ruin!

The judiciary does not need to specialize in build queues; they should be able to specialize in the laws, and in this case in particular, in the will of the people. They should be able to realize that if the people say they want more military units, and a governor has no military in the build queues and has no good reason to build what they are building, the governor is not making a build queue that follows the will of the people. The "good reason to build what they are building" takes some knowledge, but the judiciary ought to know some things. If given this power, the judiciary should use it very sparingly. I would hope it is not necessary, but governors could ignore the people. We have to make sure the judiciary does (otherwise, that would obviously cause problems). Regardless, the judiciary needs to act more quickly to solve these problems. I'm not sure why I'm talking about the judiciary in the thread discussing the executive branch, but I didn't start this discussion.

The judiciary does not need to specialize in build queues; they should be able to specialize in the laws, and in this case in particular, in the will of the people. They should be able to realize that if the people say they want more military units, and a governor has no military in the build queues and has no good reason to build what they are building, the governor is not making a build queue that follows the will of the people. The "good reason to build what they are building" takes some knowledge, but the judiciary ought to know some things. If given this power, the judiciary should use it very sparingly. I would hope it is not necessary, but governors could ignore the people. We have to make sure the judiciary does (otherwise, that would obviously cause problems). Regardless, the judiciary needs to act more quickly to solve these problems. I'm not sure why I'm talking about the judiciary in the thread discussing the executive branch, but I didn't start this discussion.
I could see that, but it should be made clear as to what is rewuired in those queues when the CJ is told to change them.

But when did the judiciary specialize in build queues? Never. They could make terrible decisions that could lead us to ruin!

The Judiciary would not be constructing build queues out of thin air. In order for a posted queue to be declared invalid the judiciary would have to have evidence from the forums that the people wanted something built other than whatever it was the governor queued up. Therefore the judiciary would be posting instructions to build exactly what the people wanted. That's the whole problem we're trying to fix, right? We're talking about a governor who posts queues that go against the *will of the people*, right? We're trying to find a way to ensure that the *will of the people* prevails, right?

Well, you see, mine has six ministers of varying importance, the other have a few (I think four) of all high importance. So there is a bit of a difference. ;)

And where are the governors in all this? So do we need a poll to find out how many ministers we want? We have to figure that stuff out before we can write this article of the constitution.

Donsig, give the newbie a chance to think things through. Not all of us have a legal degree. ;)

The Judiciary would not be constructing build queues out of thin air. In order for a posted queue to be declared invalid the judiciary would have to have evidence from the forums that the people wanted something built other than whatever it was the governor queued up. Therefore the judiciary would be posting instructions to build exactly what the people wanted. That's the whole problem we're trying to fix, right? We're talking about a governor who posts queues that go against the *will of the people*, right? We're trying to find a way to ensure that the *will of the people* prevails, right?
Thank you very much :) I was just seeing if you shared my same thoughts.

And where are the governors in all this? So do we need a poll to find out how many ministers we want? We have to figure that stuff out before we can write this article of the constitution.
Governors arent in the top positions of government like ministers are. This is because they usually have far less to do than the ministers have to do in their TC instructions.

Governors are local executives elected by their constituants. I didn't get into who would do the queues if they screwed up, because it didn't occur to me that anyone would care. The choice is between local (governor is always right) and federal power (governor can be overruled to build national projects). It seems to me very unlikely that this would occur, but if we insist on debating it, I say we have popularly sponsored National Projects that would dictate the general area of what the governors have to build. For example, if we're going to war, a National Project could be voted on (this serves the purpose in showing that it is the will of the people to build these things), and then quotas set (50 cavalry, 15 artillery, 5 galleons, etc.), which the governors would then aim to fulfill (Province 1 pledges output of 15 cav, prov. 2 predicts 10, etc). This would be conducted by the MIA/MDA. It may be complex and unecessary, but so is this discussion. :p

Governors are local executives elected by their constituants. I didn't get into who would do the queues if they screwed up, because it didn't occur to me that anyone would care. The choice is between local (governor is always right) and federal power (governor can be overruled to build national projects). It seems to me very unlikely that this would occur, but if we insist on debating it, I say we have popularly sponsored National Projects that would dictate the general area of what the governors have to build. For example, if we're going to war, a National Project could be voted on (this serves the purpose in showing that it is the will of the people to build these things), and then quotas set (50 cavalry, 15 artillery, 5 galleons, etc.), which the governors would then aim to fulfill (Province 1 pledges output of 15 cav, prov. 2 predicts 10, etc). This would be conducted by the MIA/MDA. It may be complex and unecessary, but so is this discussion. :p
I like this. It sounds like the solution I was seeking.

Governors are local executives elected by their constituants. I didn't get into who would do the queues if they screwed up, because it didn't occur to me that anyone would care. The choice is between local (governor is always right) and federal power (governor can be overruled to build national projects). It seems to me very unlikely that this would occur, but if we insist on debating it, I say we have popularly sponsored National Projects that would dictate the general area of what the governors have to build. For example, if we're going to war, a National Project could be voted on (this serves the purpose in showing that it is the will of the people to build these things), and then quotas set (50 cavalry, 15 artillery, 5 galleons, etc.), which the governors would then aim to fulfill (Province 1 pledges output of 15 cav, prov. 2 predicts 10, etc). This would be conducted by the MIA/MDA. It may be complex and unecessary, but so is this discussion. :pI personally don't like the idea of local executives filling any official role. When we have two or three provinces, it might work fairly well, but once it gets beyond that, we will have sparsely-populated provinces with little participation. We had enough trouble last DG filling offices on a national level; on a provincial level, I imagine that many governorships would go unfilled if we had 10 provinces like last game (or even worse the number of provinces at the ends of DG1 and DG2). I think our past system of governors worked fairly well.

Governors arent in the top positions of government like ministers are. This is because they usually have far less to do than the ministers have to do in their TC instructions.

I can't recall, have you been a governor of a productive province? It can be time consuming. When we do an in-game RPG, the more active governors and mayors tend to be its lifeblood.

I can't recall, have you been a governor of a productive province? It can be time consuming. When we do an in-game RPG, the more active governors and mayors tend to be its lifeblood.
No, I have not and never will be a governor. But speaking of workloads.... arent you a bit hypocritical? You were after all MIA for the first 2 terms. Also, I would imagine its much more time-consuming to decide operational plans against Babylon (what I did in DG4T3) than it is to plot the course of a few cities and what they should produce.

Domestic (IA) should be the one who fixes the build queues, not the judiciary. They already (or should) have control of cities without governors.

The point of having the judiciary fix the queues, is that they already have to rule on whether the queues match the WOTP, and thus have already figured out what needs to be done. Having Domestic / Internal Affairs fix the queue sounds too much like an override. Of course it would be better still for the judiciary to rule "this queue is illegal" and have the governor fix it himself / herself.

No, I have not and never will be a governor. But speaking of workloads.... arent you a bit hypocritical? You were after all MIA for the first 2 terms. Also, I would imagine its much more time-consuming to decide operational plans against Babylon (what I did in DG4T3) than it is to plot the course of a few cities and what they should produce.

There is no doubt that some (most) executive positions are more time-consuming than some (most) governor positions. I was just trying to point out that generalizing it to all advisors spend more time than all governors is going a little too far.

Governors should be part of the executive branch as well.
I disagree with you. I personaly see the govenors should stay and remain in the legislative branch of the government.

Governors legislate? :confused:

Someone care to explain? Because according to the constitution the only legislative body is the Congress (DaveShack) or Assembly (Epimethius).

Governors legislate? :confused:

Someone care to explain? Because according to the constitution the only legislative body is the Congress (DaveShack) or Assembly (Epimethius).
if u look at the last demogame rulset(before the finace minister), the governors had the minister of finace's job...which was approve cash-rushes, and take care of the sliders

if u look at the last demogame rulset(before the finace minister), the governors had the minister of finace's job...which was approve cash-rushes, and take care of the sliders

The terms when the Senate was in control of the finances were an unmitigated disaster, primarily because of inactivity on the part of the Senators themselves. Most of the votes were 1-0-0 with 2 or more Senators absent. Couple that with a Vice President who didn't believe he had the ability to post instructions because the rules didn't explicitly say who should post them, and we ended up with several chats where the instructions were missing entirely, or completely out of touch with what the people wanted.

The F&L ministry was created to fix this problem, and I think it should stay.

I agree - The MFL was created to preside over the two most troublesome aspects of the game, finances and workers.

In another random addition to the conversation, I'll also agree that, without the useless Senate, governors should be considered executive officials.

Though, for the sake of ease and for the sake of not having to worry about people running around with weird provincial borders, I'd make governors purely option advisors to the MIA. No elections for them, either. The MIA takes over all responsibilites traditionally belonging to governors. If the MIA so desires, he creates a list of cities (note - not drawing up borders on a map ) he needs help with, assigns them to a volunteers to suggest build queues, labor positions, etc. Almost instantly, you eliminate most of the conflicts that occur as conflicts between governors with other governors and the Ministers.

I agree - The MFL was created to preside over the two most troublesome aspects of the game, finances and workers.

In another random addition to the conversation, I'll also agree that, without the useless Senate, governors should be considered executive officials.

Though, for the sake of ease and for the sake of not having to worry about people running around with weird provincial borders, I'd make governors purely option advisors to the MIA. No elections for them, either. The MIA takes over all responsibilites traditionally belonging to governors. If the MIA so desires, he creates a list of cities (note - not drawing up borders on a map ) he needs help with, assigns them to a volunteers to suggest build queues, labor positions, etc. Almost instantly, you eliminate most of the conflicts that occur as conflicts between governors with other governors and the Ministers.

:lol: Well, duuh... :eek: The conflicts between governors and others would be eliminated instantly, as you're doing away with the Governors. What you're saying is that you want the MIA (who was actually missing in action during DG4 for a while) to assign Mayors to help with the BQs. Is this a wise idea? I don't think so. Keep the Gov's!

Keep the Governors! Keep the MFL! Keep the status quo!

I agree - The MFL was created to preside over the two most troublesome aspects of the game, finances and workers.

In another random addition to the conversation, I'll also agree that, without the useless Senate, governors should be considered executive officials.

Though, for the sake of ease and for the sake of not having to worry about people running around with weird provincial borders, I'd make governors purely option advisors to the MIA. No elections for them, either. The MIA takes over all responsibilites traditionally belonging to governors. If the MIA so desires, he creates a list of cities (note - not drawing up borders on a map ) he needs help with, assigns them to a volunteers to suggest build queues, labor positions, etc. Almost instantly, you eliminate most of the conflicts that occur as conflicts between governors with other governors and the Ministers.

people are complaining a 5cc would limit governors, i think most ppl want governors to increase participation

Keep the Governors! Keep the MFL! Keep the status quo!

Or, better yet, change to my proposal! :p

Well, what's wrong with the idea of minimizing inneffciency by placing all the cities under the MIA's leadership? I know the MIA has gone MIA before, Cyc, but we're more likely to have multiple governors MIA than we are to have on Ministry-level official gone. Yes, the governors would essentially be mayors, but could potentially have charge of multiple cities, rather than just the one.

Having governors as volunteer positions appointed by the MIA, Black Hole, could only increase participation. The MIA can assign away cities as he pleases to willing members. Deadbeats and those taking the spots with no intention of fulfilling those roles can be removed quickly and cleanly, opening up more room for more eager volunteers.

I think we can all agree that it's better to cut through the senseless bureacracy that plagues this game. The way this is most effciently done is by reducing the number of elected officials, so all is streamlined.

Well, what's wrong with the idea of minimizing inneffciency by placing all the cities under the MIA's leadership? I know the MIA has gone MIA before, Cyc, but we're more likely to have multiple governors MIA than we are to have on Ministry-level official gone. Yes, the governors would essentially be mayors, but could potentially have charge of multiple cities, rather than just the one.

Having governors as volunteer positions appointed by the MIA, Black Hole, could only increase participation. The MIA can assign away cities as he pleases to willing members. Deadbeats and those taking the spots with no intention of fulfilling those roles can be removed quickly and cleanly, opening up more room for more eager volunteers.

I think we can all agree that it's better to cut through the senseless bureacracy that plagues this game. The way this is most effciently done is by reducing the number of elected officials, so all is streamlined.
If you put it like that, I think there should be more than 1, possibly 3 people working in the MIA: the MIA themself, and 2 helpers in addition to the deputy to secure the empire completely and cover up the stuff the MIA misses.

You could create an entire little sub-managment team under the MIA! Under the Minister himself, there could be an office for city placement, and office for wonder planning, and another office, under my plan, for ciy managment for the governors.

You could create an entire little sub-managment team under the MIA! Under the Minister himself, there could be an office for city placement, and office for wonder planning, and another office, under my plan, for ciy managment for the governors.
would the sub management team be elected or appointed by the MIA?

We could have just as many beaurucrats as we would governors, but without the governors! Which would be better, since appointed bureaucrats are always better than elected executives! ;)

And most of those things should, logically, be alloted to the people (city placement) or culture (wonder planning). Let's not make the MIA more power than the president, much less the people.

It's more like an advisory board for the MIA in those areas. I'm thinking about the same type of system I impleamented (but hasn't be used) in the CFC team for the PTWMSDG. Elected Ministers should be basically allowed to delegate their powers to people they appoint. This would be applicable to all elected officials. The MFL could appoint someone to, say, watch over spending. The MIA could appoint someone to help with city placement, or, as in my above proposal, help set queues for cities. The Military Minister could appoint someone to organize internal defenses. And so on and so forth. This would all be freeform, at the individual initiative of elected officials.

would the sub management team be elected or appointed by the MIA?
Interesting question... I dont know...

I think Oct has a very good idea. Let the ministers delegate their power to whoever they appoint. Of course, also let the ministers sack those who does not do a good job.

Sounds good. And in case the minister wants to do the work, to be sure everything is in control, he can chose to do so. That way a minister has power! Good.

I really do not see why we are so intent on taking the power away from the people in a democracy game. The idea of elected governors is that they are chosen by their constituants, the way the president is, to run their cities for them, the way the president runs the game. Replacing them with appointed carpetbaggers does not seem like a better idea, especially as it strengthens one official (namely the MIA) to an astounding degree.

And when it comes to appointing subnordinants, remember that we were electing these people to do their jobs, not to choose good people to do their jobs. If we allow the cabinet to appoint a cabinet, we'll end up with a cabinet full of politicians reading instructions given to them by their bureaucrats. The bureaucracy will be huge, and the only say the people will have in anything is who gets to appoint the bureaucrats.

And I firmly believe that the people should get a say in city placement. Maybe not naming, but certainly placement.

OK, I think we have enough ideas floating around to try a couple of polls.

Should we keep the traditional Governor positions (Y/N/A)

Which of these offices should be used in DG5? (multi-choice, all having more than 33% of the vote will remain. If Culture does not have enough votes it will be combined into Domestic / Internal Affairs as in DG4. If Technology does not have enough votes then it will be combined into Trade as in DG4. If Finance & Labor does not have enough vote there will be further discussion on how to handle those functions. If other gets more than 33% then we scrap this poll and continue general discussion.

Domestic / Internal Affairs
Military
Trade
Technology Separate
Culture Separate
Finance & Labor
Foreign Affairs
Other, need more discussion
Abstain (essentially none of the above)


Any comments on these proposed polls?

Should we keep the traditional Governor positions (Y/N/A)

What's traditional here? In DG4 the governors weren't part of the executive branch, because they started in the Senate. I still believe governors should not be part of the executive branch. In my opinion they functioned well in DG4 after the Senate was dissolved. Why not have a 'formal' Senate, where governors discuss where to build wonders and stuff, and don't have to care about financial matters?

I really do not see why we are so intent on taking the power away from the people in a democracy game. The idea of elected governors is that they are chosen by their constituants, the way the president is, to run their cities for them, the way the president runs the game. Replacing them with appointed carpetbaggers does not seem like a better idea, especially as it strengthens one official (namely the MIA) to an astounding degree.

And when it comes to appointing subnordinants, remember that we were electing these people to do their jobs, not to choose good people to do their jobs. If we allow the cabinet to appoint a cabinet, we'll end up with a cabinet full of politicians reading instructions given to them by their bureaucrats. The bureaucracy will be huge, and the only say the people will have in anything is who gets to appoint the bureaucrats.

And I firmly believe that the people should get a say in city placement. Maybe not naming, but certainly placement.
I wanted those subordinate positions to the MIA to help them with that overwhelming job, not to give the MIA more power.

What's traditional here? In DG4 the governors weren't part of the executive branch, because they started in the Senate. I still believe governors should not be part of the executive branch. In my opinion they functioned well in DG4 after the Senate was dissolved. Why not have a 'formal' Senate, where governors discuss where to build wonders and stuff, and don't have to care about financial matters?

I think you misunderstood the point of the proposed poll. There is discussion about abolishing the governors entirely, or making them deputies of the Domestic department. This poll is on keeping the positions as they were in previous DG's. Whether to call them "legislative" or "executive" does not affect the duties and responsibilities.

A simple way to do the poll would be:

-Traditional 5 Minister System (Internal, Foreign, Trade & Tech, Military, and Finance)
-Epimethius' 7 Minister System (Domestic, Trade, Military, Tech, Foreign, and Culture)
-Abstain

There are also a number of other issues buried within the thread, which we should poll on.

A simple way to do the poll would be:

-Epimethius' 7 Minister System (Domestic, Trade, Military, Tech, Foreign, and Culture)


I only counted 6?
:confused:

There are also a number of other issues buried within the thread, which we should poll on.
If you can identify the specific issues you would like polled, it will simplify matters and make sure everyone's issues are handled.

I only counted 6?
:confused:
As did I ;)

As did I ;)
i thought it was because i was tired last night... but i guess not...

What's traditional here? In DG4 the governors weren't part of the executive branch, because they started in the Senate. I still believe governors should not be part of the executive branch. In my opinion they functioned well in DG4 after the Senate was dissolved. Why not have a 'formal' Senate, where governors discuss where to build wonders and stuff, and don't have to care about financial matters?
I thought the govenors were part of the legistlative department :confused:. Anyway, I beleve we should keep the govenors. Any small province that does not meet the requierments for a govenor (due to city quantity) or if there are no govenors appointed or elected to the province then the province can be controled by the domestic department like it had done in the past demogames.

Proposed Article D Ratification Poll:

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, as well as
the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Misister of Technology shall be
responsible for all tech acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.

I think we need to have a poll on where Governors fit in before we wirte up the article for the Executive Branch. After all, if it turns out we want them in the Executive Branch, we'll need to change the article a bit, won't we?

Better to rename the Minister of Technology to Minister of Science. That's what the premature noms thread is calling it, so it should be done. ;). Besides then it matches exactly the Civ Advisor screens.

We don't want Governors in the Executive Branch(ok, at least I don't). The Executive Branch represents the nation while the Governors represent the provinces(states). That aspect alone should be enough to continue this long-standing separation.

Noldodan the governors should NEVER be part of the executive.

Noldodan the governors should NEVER be part of the executive.
No, no, I agree, I agree. It's just that there has been considerable support for them to move to the Executive. So if an article is written before the poll is done, I expect there to be an outcry.

Okay Domestic Affairs needs to be expanded IMHO


1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, such as
directing workers for building infrastructure, as well as
the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.

Actually, control of worker actions need to be notated somewhere in our Constitution, athough I believe that responsibility should lie with the President/DP(not the DM).

Actually, I voted for the Governors to control the Workers, but I would say the President/DP before the DM.

The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.


Add the phrase "The President shall be tasked with the control of worker actions"?

I could agree to that

I'm against giving that power to the Governors, but the President is fine.
EDIT: Though Designated Player is too broad.

That's good for me, anyway. It would definitely cover the Workers.

The change has been made in the original proposal.

Here's what I would like in terms of worker control. Unfortunately it's a bit cumbersome, but maybe some of my esteemed colleagues in the proposed laws author's guild can come up with a way to say it elegantly.


Domestic / Internal Affairs should control how workers are assigned to provinces, so that national priorities are balanced
Governors (with help of mayors and citizens) should control what improvements are done to each tile and provide an indication of their preferred order of completion
President / DP is responsible for the actual assignment of tasks to workers, and the final ordering of how tasks are done to maximize productivity.

Looks good, Immo. :)

DS: sounds like a chain of command type worker structure, Id like to chew that for a little while.

Governors should have the right to request certain land improvements, but I'm not sure about the power to actually make the decisions should be given to them

Edit: though by my view Daveshack's proposal follows that, but basically expands on it a bit more then I feel neccisary.

Here's what I would like in terms of worker control. Unfortunately it's a bit cumbersome, but maybe some of my esteemed colleagues in the proposed laws author's guild can come up with a way to say it elegantly.


Domestic / Internal Affairs should control how workers are assigned to provinces, so that national priorities are balanced
Governors (with help of mayors and citizens) should control what improvements are done to each tile and provide an indication of their preferred order of completion
President / DP is responsible for the actual assignment of tasks to workers, and the final ordering of how tasks are done to maximize productivity.


IIRC, this was how it was done in DGIII. And while DGIII was full of controversy, the worker assignments worked out just fine.

You're right, Noldodan. The Worker situation did work well in DG3. And I do like DS's plan above, with refinement. But it may be a bit late now. Perhaps we can work on it more later.

I think this can be unwritten and based on the President. The distubution of worker reponsibility can then be a campaign issue rather than a rigid law.

Mr(or Madame) President, how do you plan to include other elected leaders in your labor plans?.

Let's let the buck stop with the President.

I considered is DS, and I think that your method of doing things is actually quite similar to the way the game will turn out to function.

The domestic/governors will request workers for certain jobs, and the president will assign them based on priority.

As far as which workers are assigned to which provinces, that is very difficult to do, I think a broad workforce generality is easier to work with.

Domestic/governors request a worker for such a task----> president assigns them.

It seems to me that a very minor change to the sentence can create a situation such as this.

In your situation, do you want the president or the domestic advisor to have ultimate authority over workers? that is the most critical part.

RE-Proposed Article D Ratification Poll:

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation, as well
as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Misister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.




Optional lines: President shall be in charge of worker actions, the Domestic advisor shall advise the President on worker allocation.

Well, why have a middle man?

It seems to me it would be a better idea if the power to decide worker allocation rested solely in the President. We assume that only the governors and MIA want a piece of the worker pie. What if the military needs a road so it can better march of to war? What if the Minsiter of Trade needs a road to establish a connection? Could the science department want more roads instead of mines in order to increase commerce, and by association, research speed?

I'd rather let the President make decision himself. It'd be the only decision-making power he'd have normally. Plus, it'd give incentive for more people to stop by the chat, so as to advise him on those decisions.

Youve convinced me. back to how it was before then.

Ratification Poll Now Open

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94910

That argument for the President to be responsible for worker actions is persuasive. I don't think the clock needs to be restarted on the proposed poll, just copy the re-revised text down to the bottom of the thread and proceed to the poll when the 24 hours runs out, unless there is new opposition in the opposite direction.