ybbor
Will not change his avata
i just don't don'y like the wording. it just seems, kinda rough drafty. i'm in support of the proposal, just not the actual wording, it seems too vauge. and why are we eliminating at-large governemrs anyway?
An old idea reborn: Ministry of Finance and Labor
- Thread starter ravensfire
- Start date
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Where do you think it's too vague? Trust me, I can fix that!
As for the at-large - these changes eliminated the need for Senate votes, which drove the need for at-large Governors. They were they to make sure we always had 3 members of the Senate.
Currently, once we get to three provinces, no At-Large position is elected - it's not needed. Given that this change eliminates the need for that position, I would suggest just removing it entirely.
-- Ravensfire
TerminalMan90
Citizen @ Large
As past VP in Term 2 and Term 3 Governor-At-Large I would like to say a few things about the previous senate.
1) Early on, the Senate wasn't taken very seriously by the Governors. Donsig did a great job of trying to get people to participate in the votes by the Governors and at-larges didn't seem to think it was important enough to post.
2) In Term 2, I also tried to get participation and failed. It was frustrating to post a vote that got ignored. The Senate thread drew very little discussion.
3) in Term 3, there were lots more posts about what was needed for cash rushes. I had difficulty staying informed about the decisions I was asked to make on important rushes. I didn't feel comfortable voting on issues I didn't fully understand. In this Term, there was more arguing about cash requests, but only a few votes actually got posted.
I think three factors contributed to the above. The senate's had limited influence and attracted insufficient attention to draw stake-holder's attention (and keep it). Early on, the demands on the senate for decisions were light and, frankly, boring. And to do their jobs properly, Senators must be diligent and involved. This wasn't the case for any of the three terms.
Undoutable, effort was made by some members of the Senate. But without the cooperation of all Senators, their efforts were wasted.
I submit that in the coming terms, the Senate (as it is currently) would have more and more power and importance. Perhaps the problem with the Senate is that it involves Governors who already have other things to work on. Perhaps additional players should control the slider and cash rushes.
I don't know; just my 2 cents.
1) Early on, the Senate wasn't taken very seriously by the Governors. Donsig did a great job of trying to get people to participate in the votes by the Governors and at-larges didn't seem to think it was important enough to post.
2) In Term 2, I also tried to get participation and failed. It was frustrating to post a vote that got ignored. The Senate thread drew very little discussion.
3) in Term 3, there were lots more posts about what was needed for cash rushes. I had difficulty staying informed about the decisions I was asked to make on important rushes. I didn't feel comfortable voting on issues I didn't fully understand. In this Term, there was more arguing about cash requests, but only a few votes actually got posted.
I think three factors contributed to the above. The senate's had limited influence and attracted insufficient attention to draw stake-holder's attention (and keep it). Early on, the demands on the senate for decisions were light and, frankly, boring. And to do their jobs properly, Senators must be diligent and involved. This wasn't the case for any of the three terms.
Undoutable, effort was made by some members of the Senate. But without the cooperation of all Senators, their efforts were wasted.
I submit that in the coming terms, the Senate (as it is currently) would have more and more power and importance. Perhaps the problem with the Senate is that it involves Governors who already have other things to work on. Perhaps additional players should control the slider and cash rushes.
I don't know; just my 2 cents.
What I want to know is, why is everyone against something that was origanally under Domestic's control? Back when the demogame was first created, each advisor controlled whatever they saw on their respected advisor screen.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
A majority of the people wanted a change would be the most direct answer. There's a discussion from November/December about it somewhere in the archives.
-- Ravensfire
-- Ravensfire
ybbor
Will not change his avata
again, just too vauge. (and why dowe have prescribed by law anyway? this is the law, how can it prescribe itself?) also, the 'fanatican workforce' may also be seen as what squares citizens of a city work. but the first part of the sentance could be interpreted 1000 differnt ways. and don't at-large governers fill vacant slots in governership positions?
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
The "prescribed by law" phrase is found in all other sections - I can't remember exactly why it was there. I think DaveShack suggested it. I *think* it's there to indicate that the broad authority granted by the Constitution is limited by the laws found in the CoL and the CoS.
The Constitution is supposed to be general in scope. Look at the MIA's section: "The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be responsible for all domestic and cultural initiatives, as prescribed by law." Pretty generic.
The CoL and CoS is what defines and limits the broad scope of the Constitution. The Con is setup to be difficult to change - it represents the basis for everything. The CoL and CoS are much easier to change, and represent the details.
How about this:
Add: 5. The Minister of Finance and Labor is responsible for all financial matters and managing the Fanatican worker units, as prescribed by law.
Now, because I can see it raised, what about trades - aren't they potentially financial matters? Yes, they are. So how does it work - the MTT is responsible for all trades. If a trade will involve money being spent, the MTT needs to work with the MFL on that. You must have a single entity responsible for all uses of the budget.
Money is a limited resource, with multiple demands upon that resource. Which ones take priority? Which ones have to be cut? What if MTT makes a trade that bankrupts the treasury when we needed it to fight off an invasion? See the problems? But doesn't that mean the MFL has too much power? Not really. All leaders are bound by the Will of the People. Period. If the MFL wants to go against that will, a CC will get filed on that. If there are more demands than money available, the MFL gets the uneviable job of determine what to fund, and what not to fund. Yeah, that's going to suck, but someone has to do it.
Hopefully that helped some. If someone has a different idea for handling the budget, post the details. Make sure you cover the scenarios above though - who ultimately decides how to balance the budget? I think that should be the MFL.
-- Ravensfire
Again, back in DG1 and 2, Domestic handled the budget. If Trade wanted to spend X amount, then they had to go through domestic. Like Ravensfire said, gold is a limited resource. The MFL department will ensure that we don't go OVER-budget. Yes, things like Foreign Affairs, Trade, Science, etc. will be addressed first, and that's what was done. The left over money was set for trades and an "emergency budget".
What's an "emergency budget" you ask? It was a level of money set aside incase of an emergency! For example, then, Domestic would say, "You may rush any improvement, especially culture on the borders with the left over money, but do not go below 200 gold.". This was done to give some lee-way on demands, and when trade deals changed slightly.
What's an "emergency budget" you ask? It was a level of money set aside incase of an emergency! For example, then, Domestic would say, "You may rush any improvement, especially culture on the borders with the left over money, but do not go below 200 gold.". This was done to give some lee-way on demands, and when trade deals changed slightly.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
it is in general a very good Idea, and I think it should be implemented. The Senate is ineffective.
ybbor
Will not change his avata
the new version is better, ty. especially for the clarification. and as for your "i can seeit raised", look at the begining of this thread 
one of the first issues i raised
one of the first issues i raised
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
most likely, its better to have players who can join now rather than be based in the past DG's.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Originally posted by ybbor
the new version is better, ty. especially for the clarification. and as for your "i can seeit raised", look at the begining of this thread
Glad to hear that! And yes, I did remember it because you did raise it. Didn't want you to repeat yourself!
-- Ravensfire
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
it is a good improvement, now to get this issue moved through the Judiciary...
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Not quite yet - this is a big change, and as others have said, it's not good to ram this down the throats of others.
Let's see if any more concerns are raised tomorrow.
Not to mention, we don't have a full court yet ...
-- Ravensfire
Let's see if any more concerns are raised tomorrow.
Not to mention, we don't have a full court yet ...
-- Ravensfire
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
I can see that. I leave it to you when this will be brought before them in that case.
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
they dont really, but Trade and Technology are different areas as well.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Final proposal:
Hmmm, I thought I had posted this last night. Oh well - 'tis up now!
-- Ravensfire
Code:
[b]Ministry of Finance and Labor[/b]
[color=darkred][b]Constitution Changes:[/b][/color]
[i]Article D:[/i]
Add: 5. The Minister of Finance and Labor is responsible for all financial matters and
managing the Fanatican worker units (including captured workers), as prescribed by law.
Change: Change the number of advisors from 4 to 5.
[color=darkred][b]Code of Laws Changes: [/b][/color]
[i]Section B.1:[/i]
Remove: 1.d Is responsible for worker activities.
Renumber all succeeding sections.
[i]Section B.2:[/i]
Change: a. ... Leaders of the 5 Departments
Add: i. Ministry of Finance and Labor
1. Is responsible for determining the slider settings
2. Is responsible for determining all uses of cash
3. Is responsible for all Fanatican worker unit activities, including captured workers
[i]Section C.1[/i]
Remove: a.2.A. At-Large Governors
a.2.b VP votes on ties
c. Slider votes
d. Cash Requests
[i]Section C.3[/i]
Remove: entire section
[i]Section F.3[/i]
Add: f. Minister of Finance and Labor
Renumber: all sections below (starting with Chief Justice)
Remove: i. At-Large Governors
[i]Section G[/i]
Add: g. Minister of Finance and Labor
[color=darkred][b]Code of Standards Changes: [/b][/color]
[i]Section J.3.d[/i]
Remove: 2 At-Large GovernorsHmmm, I thought I had posted this last night. Oh well - 'tis up now!
-- Ravensfire
