Amending Article C

[Gerikes]

I believe this change has been in the minds of citizens since the ruling on JR 13 a few days ago. I feel that we should also take this time, however, to finally squash that policy about foriegn cities, and more specifically, the owning of said cities.

From the Constitution:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

First off, JR13 concluded on the abondoning or razing of Fanatikos-controlled cities:

In a 2-1 decision, the Judiciary ruled that the abandonment of our own cities, with the consent of the people, is constitutional.

I think anyone who agrees with this ruling feels a bit of angst against their own agreeing with it. How is it constitutional to abandon or kill our own citizens? A change must be made. I would like to step forward to propose this simple, effective change:

At no time may a city built by Fanatikos be razed or abandoned.

This amendment, however, deals only with the issue of protecting the lives of citizens in original Fanatikos cities. This segregation against Fanatikos citizens in cities not originally built by Fanatikos would be absurd. This proposed amendment deals with protecting all Fanatikos citizens while still staying true to our original 5BC, one foreign city variant. So, I would instead propose this change:

At no time may a city owned or acquired by Fanatikos be razed or abandoned. If at any time Fanatikos controls or acquires more than one city built by a foreign nation, then the more recently acquired city or cities built by that nation must be immediately abandoned.

It's a bit tricky to grasp at first, but after reading through it, you'll see it covers the critical areas. Areas that this would cover include stopping the destruction of native Fanatikos cities, whether originally built by Fanatikos or acquired as our "one city per foreign civ". Finally, the exact terms for how to decide which of two foreign-controlled cities to abandon if both are in our control or if one is acquired, to prevent any misuse of picking which of two cities that we control at once we are allowed to keep (which may lead to non-humanitarian motives). The usage of the word "acquisition" is very important, as it makes sure that the first culture flip towards us is considered our city for that nation (as was decided in a 3-0 vote in JR10. Finally, any foreign city that wishes to rebel and join our cause must realize that we will only accept one, and on a first-come-first-serve basis. We can't be held responsible for what happens to cities that try to rebel and join us when we can't accept their proposal. Final, the last line of Article C. can be removed, since the inserted lines are basically a reworded version.

Here then, is the final proposal, in both it's easy-to-use edited and final form.

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. At no time may a city owned or acquired by Fanatikos be razed or abandoned. If at any time Fanatikos controls or acquires more than one city built by a foreign nation, then the more recently acquired city or cities built by that nation must be immediately abandoned. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. At no time may a city owned or acquired by Fanatikos be razed or abandoned. If at any time Fanatikos controls or acquires more than one city built by a foreign nation, then the more recently acquired city or cities built by that nation must be immediately abandoned.

 

[DaveShack]

I vehemently oppose these proposed changes. They attempt to further cement the already foolhardy positions taken by past JRs. Instead, I call for further consideration of my proposal from the making it fun to be smarter thread. Let's allow culture and smart peace negotiations, two of the more enjoyable aspects of the game, to proceed like they normally would. We should allow ourselves to keep peacefully acquired cities (via treaty and via culture flip) above and beyond the original limit of one per opponent.

As previously argued by others in judicial reviews and in my first amendment proposal on Article C, we should not accept rebels and then put them to the sword. Let us welcome them with open arms. It won't make our victory that much easier, and it sure makes more sense culturally.

As for abandoning our own cities, who said anything about killing citizens? Just build workers and settlers until the last build results in zero population. Nobody dies that way, and we get to move a city if necessary. Though why anyone is actually worried about that is beyond my understanding, I can't forsee any circumstances where we would willingly move any of our cities given the excellent locations we already enjoy.

 

[Cyc]

I supported DS's first amendment proposal on Article C, and was against Strider's attempt to get rid of Article C. For this amendment, I'm going to have to say no again. It's the wording. I understand how you feel when it comes to the lives of our citizens. I was a major cog in the wheel of dissent for pop rushing in previous DGs. Ask Eyrei. But I don't agree with your concept here and I'm just barely agreeing with DS.

Lets look at the wording. First you say:
'At no time may a city owned or acquired by Fanatikos be razed or abandoned.

Then you say:
' If at any time Fanatikos controls or acquires more than one city built by a foreign nation, then the more recently acquired city or cities built by that nation must be immediately abandoned.

Isn't this a matter of semantics? We can't kill them this way but we can kill them that way....

It just seems to be an execise in futility. We make this change? I think DaveShack's proposed change covered this and more. But it was shot down.

 

[Gerikes]

Lets look at the wording. First you say:
'At no time may a city owned or acquired by Fanatikos be razed or abandoned.

Then you say:
' If at any time Fanatikos controls or acquires more than one city built by a foreign nation, then the more recently acquired city or cities built by that nation must be immediately abandoned.

Isn't this a matter of semantics? We can't kill them this way but we can kill them that way....

Yes, it is tough to word. I went through 2-3 versions. It looks like this one is flawed as well.

The idea is that the only exception to the rule would be if it just so happens that we gain another city, in which case our hands are forced. An exception could happen in this scenario: Say we get in a war with Germany, and German forces recapture Berlin. If we were to end war and gain a city by a culture flip during peace, we now only have one city gained from Germany. But, if we go to war later and recapture Berlin, which city do we keep? I believe the answer is Berlin, because it was the first one we acquired. We do then run into the situation, however, that we would have to abandon a city we recieved through peace, which is a major nono in my book.

If the wording is all that is in it, then let's try another proposal and go again. We now have three various ways to see Article C possibly changed, if at least one comes close to how the citizens thinks it should be, then I urge those citizens to find one proposal that comes close to their standards, and then improve it.


As for removing towns by "dwindling cities down", yes it's possible. But are you really going to say to a million people, "Pack your things, we're heading miles away? Leave your homes, leave your schools, we're moving the town down the street" (like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer becomes Sanitation Commisioner ). I don't believe in such an aggressive form of Eminent Domain, and I don't believe in this either.

Suffice to say, this may not be what we're looking for, and perhaps no rest will ever come from Article C. Of course, perhaps the fight for the real Article C amendment might just be more fun than the game...

But here's what I'm looking for: For each foreign nation, we may take one city that they have built by any means. After this event, if any city from that nation tries to rebel to us, we rebuff. If we attack one of their cities and have the option to raze or keep, we raze. If we lose our one city, well, we're down one city for the game.

 

[Cyc]

Yes, it is tough to word. I went through 2-3 versions. It looks like this one is flawed as well.

I knew it was tough. We've had several VERY important Articles and Amendments that were the same way. If people could just understand that middle part, without having to read it, then it would all make sense. I've been in yer shoes.

The idea is that the only exception to the rule would be if it just so happens that we gain another city, in which case our hands are forced. An exception could happen in this scenario: Say we get in a war with Germany, and German forces recapture Berlin. If we were to end war and gain a city by a culture flip during peace, we now only have one city gained from Germany. But, if we go to war later and recapture Berlin, which city do we keep? I believe the answer is Berlin, because it was the first one we acquired. We do then run into the situation, however, that we would have to abandon a city we recieved through peace, which is a major nono in my book.

That's why I like the End-of-Turn deal. Before the end of the turn, we find ourselves with two or more cities build by a foriegn nation (let's say Germany). Well before we smashed the button, a brief discussion (or a save and the end of the session) could determine which city we abandoned. In your example, I would also choice Berlin, but most certainly not because it was the first one we acquired, but because it would be a more productive city (unless there was an even better city for some reason). Of course it's a nono, but it's in the Constitution so we can only keep one.

If the wording is all that is in it, then let's try another proposal and go again. We now have three various ways to see Article C possibly changed, if at least one comes close to how the citizens thinks it should be, then I urge those citizens to find one proposal that comes close to their standards, and then improve it.

A noble point of view.

Suffice to say, this may not be what we're looking for, and perhaps no rest will ever come from Article C. Of course, perhaps the fight for the real Article C amendment might just be more fun than the game...

That's one of the best things I've seen you right.

But here's what I'm looking for: For each foreign nation, we may take one city that they have built by any means. After this event, if any city from that nation tries to rebel to us, we rebuff. If we attack one of their cities and have the option to raze or keep, we raze. If we lose our one city, well, we're down one city for the game.

Ah, the difficult part. How to shun people who love our way of life so much they're willing to defect as a city to become one of us. Hmmmm. Shall we say 'We will take the first lot of you who are willing to defect to our great nation, but if you take too much time, we simply don't want you. Hit the road.'

God luck in writing an Article that shows Fanatikos benevolence, yet can shun the slow ones.