Open offices needing appointments

The following offices are vacant for the new term, and applications are now being accepted. If I've missed any, or one of these offices is not vacant, don't beat me up, just let me know.


Secretary of State

Minister of the Interior

Minister of Culture

Minister of Science

Governor of Boaring Wallow

Judge Advocate

I would like to apply to be Minister of Culture, is this how I do that?

Yes, I should have specified that since some people ask for PMs.

Please apply in this thread for any of the above positions. In case there are multiple applicants, newcomers might post a little about their Civ4 experience, though it may not matter.

Dave..correct me if I am wrong. A govenor can have another position if its not filled.

IF so the I will be willing to take over a position if it is not filled( only if its not filled) with the exception of Sec of State since you cant hold 2 offices.

I am interesting in governorship of BW more than the others and I am currently governor of Abydos.

i don't mind being minister of science, is that ok? please

well dave i already applied for minister of science in the other thread but am more than willing for dutch to do it.

Ill take over as governer of BW.

I was also in interested in running for minister of culture

When will we find out if we get the position?

Soon as dave comes on probably

A couple questions: Are you the president, DaveShack? If so, is this meant to be the official call for applicants for these offices? Was this thread started after term 4 started? Doesn't the Governor's Council appoint governors and not the President?

ilr_18 said:

When will we find out if we get the position?

Click to expand...

There is a 72 hour clause in the appointment process so appointments should not be made until that time period elapses.

What if more than one person applys to be in the same position, are there still elections?

donsig said:

A couple questions: Are you the president, DaveShack? If so, is this meant to be the official call for applicants for these offices? Was this thread started after term 4 started? Doesn't the Governor's Council appoint governors and not the President?

Click to expand...

• At the time I'm posting this reply, yes.
• As of the point this post is made, it is an official call for applications.
• The time the thread is opened is not relevant, it's the time the officialness of the thread is recognized, we've had this situation before at the beginning of last term.
• Regardless of how the various offices are appointed, the most efficient way to make sure all the vacancies are filled without overlap and contention is to concentrate the application process in one place.

Please enlighten me, was there a complete ruling on the question of the "72 hour rule" in last term's judiciary? If there hasn't been such a ruling, thereby making the question undecided, I'm planning to proceed as though my interpretation is correct and the law has never been in doubt. I'm going to coach my fellow DP (once I can remember his name ) to get a move on and schedule a play session in 3 days, we need to step up the game to fix our problem with apathy. It will be necessary to have a full complement of officials to make that happen, and I trust there will be no unnecessary (IMO treasonous) delay-inducing manouvers by anyone.

ilr_18 said:

What if more than one person applys to be in the same position, are there still elections?

Click to expand...

No, the person or group of people responsible for making the appointment chooses one applicant. The people are then allowed a certain amount of time, 48 hours IIRC, to post a (non)confirmation poll if they disagree with the appointment.

donsig said:

There is a 72 hour clause in the appointment process so appointments should not be made until that time period elapses.

Click to expand...

I think this question was never fully answered by the judiciary. The correct way to proceed in that case is to assume the person using the law (which would be me) is correct. If someone feels they have to take legal action after the fact, they can, but it wouldn't invalidate the actions. Put another way, you can try to CC me and try to convince a majority to do something to me, but you can't invalidate the appointment itself. As we decided in term 1, there is no going back even if what was done is illegal.

I would like to apply for MoI.

It is fine that the call for the Governorship happens here, however it is the Governor's Council that will decide who to give it to. For all of those that don't have positions: you are automatically given preference over those that have other positions, even for the gubanatorial jobs (unless of course they announce that they plan on resigning from the position they currently hold). If you don't have a position and don't want one of the others, feel free to throw your name into the ring for BW.

Also, all governors of cities besides BW, MG, and Abydos. You might want to secure yourself a second position. I can't say anything more than that, but I wanted to throw that out there.

DaveShack said:

I think this question was never fully answered by the judiciary. The correct way to proceed in that case is to assume the person using the law (which would be me) is correct. If someone feels they have to take legal action after the fact, they can, but it wouldn't invalidate the actions. Put another way, you can try to CC me and try to convince a majority to do something to me, but you can't invalidate the appointment itself. As we decided in term 1, there is no going back even if what was done is illegal.

Click to expand...

Well, I think a judicial review would be more appropriate than a CC. For one thing, if I lodged a CC against you then we play the recusal game again. Don't forget the confirmation polls that I'll be posting for each and every appointment made before the 72 hour time period lapses. Let's also remember that we (once again) do not have a full judiciary (so once again) we're in this state where we can't even get official rulings on things. I will not recognize any appointment made to the judiciary if a full 72 hours is not given for applicants to respond. We can avoid alot of unpleasantness if the President exercises a little patience and does not make official appointments until the 72 hour period has run its course.

There is no reason why the business of the country cannot continue without a few officials in place. Any citizen is free to post discussions or binding initiatives on any subject. Anyone who has applied for a position is free to begin discussions on matters of import to the position's duties. Not only would such discussion give the President food for thought when considering applicants it would keep the country moving along. It might also fight some of that apathy the President is so concerned about.

donsig said:

Don't forget the confirmation polls that I'll be posting for each and every appointment made before the 72 hour time period lapses. Let's also remember that we (once again) do not have a full judiciary (so once again) we're in this state where we can't even get official rulings on things. I will not recognize any appointment made to the judiciary if a full 72 hours is not given for applicants to respond. We can avoid alot of unpleasantness if the President exercises a little patience and does not make official appointments until the 72 hour period has run its course.

Click to expand...

How does an executive order that the penalty for delay of game is a perma ban grab you? Cease and desist. Please...


Obviously that's a joke. I might wish I could though.

DaveShack said:

Regardless of how the various offices are appointed, the most efficient way to make sure all the vacancies are filled without overlap and contention is to concentrate the application process in one place.

Click to expand...

I agree it would be the most efficient way but it is not the legal way according to our laws as they are currently written. The Governor's Council (and not the President) must request interested citizens to contact them in the case of gubernatorial vacancies.

DaveShack said:

Please enlighten me, was there a complete ruling on the question of the "72 hour rule" in last term's judiciary? If there hasn't been such a ruling, thereby making the question undecided, I'm planning to proceed as though my interpretation is correct and the law has never been in doubt.

Click to expand...

I think we are lacking a CJ ruling. I can certainly give you one right now if you want it. It would be a simple matter of the CJ writing judicial procedures to handle unfinished cases that need to be transferred from one term to the next. As CJ I would rule that the 72 hour period must be allowed to elapse before appointments can be made. This ruling as CJ coupled with the ruling the PD made last term would be enough to put this JR into the books.

DaveShack said:

I'm going to coach my fellow DP (once I can remember his name ) to get a move on and schedule a play session in 3 days, we need to step up the game to fix our problem with apathy. It will be necessary to have a full complement of officials to make that happen, and I trust there will be no unnecessary (IMO treasonous) delay-inducing manouvers by anyone.

Click to expand...

No, DaveShack, it is not necessary to have a full compliment of officials in place to run this country. All political power and authority resides in our citizens. Each and every citizen who is not an official has the power to lead discussions and post binding initiatives on any subject. Having a vacant office does not mean things must grind to a halt. Instead of fighting the statuatory 72 time period, try using it as a period to stimulate discussions on the areas overseen by the vacant offices. Who knows, we may regenerate some interest in the game.

As for delay-inducing tactics, I have been fighting to uphold our laws for quite some time. I will continue to do so using any available legal tactic I can think of.

BCLG100 said:

well dave i already applied for minister of science in the other thread but am more than willing for dutch to do it.

Ill take over as governer of BW.

Click to expand...

thanks for the confidence