Atuhorization of early war

[ybbor]

It was discussed in the foreign ministry thread that we should approve early authorization of a war in case we come across a setteler or city undefended.

the poll will require a 3/5 (60%) majority, and the options will stack. so if you get 1/5 in favor at full discretion of the president, 1/5 in favor of a war with 2/3 minister approval, and another 1/5 in favor with 3/5 of elected officials, the action will require a 3/5 majority.

 

[fe3333au]

... sorry I'm alot confused ... could you translate ???

 

[fe3333au]

OK I posted when there was not poll to look at ...

I think that the Prez has his finger on the button ... we vote him in to make the big decisions if possible ...

I would hope that he consult and look at some of the non-aggressive options be chosen ...

But ultimately I will support our team and remember his legacy ...

 

[ybbor]

Kentharu, your votes are...strange? could you perhaps enlighten us as to what you meant by voting for multiple options at each circumstance?

and everybody, remember, this just gives the pres the option, and is not mandate, nor does it require war in the given circumstance, and it is highly likely said preident will discuss the matgter with us first.

 

[Kentharu]

lol er when i voted twice in a catagory i meant that it would need both of those circumstances to pass i.e if we come across a worker there would be a poll 3/5 would have to pass and 3/5 of the elected officails would also have to pass it... did i vote for ministers to i think that might have been a mistake but the rest are good
its kidna like if the house of Reps passes something the senate also has to pass it
yes?

 

[peter grimes]

FeauriusIII: would you mind explaining your 'other' vote?

I would have preferred this poll to be framed in synch with our elections. As it is, there will be overlap (if it passes).

But still, this may never be required. if it does become necessary to activate, though, I suggest we take a strong editorial look at the constitution as it now stands, and open our minds and hearts to a little editing. It would really be a shame if we (the citizens) are not allowed to support our leaders in pursuing a course of action that we all trust is the best.

I'll shut up now The and sunshine today are causing me to wax eloquent

 

[fe3333au]

My other vote is that I would hope that instead of automatically in robotic single game mode ... that we corale works and settlers instead of 'taking' ... I guess kidnapping or taking hostage could be other descriptions ... I'd prefer placing these wayward units into 'protective custody' ... and then negotiate

 

[Black_Hole]

wheres the option for a simple "No", there should always be citizen authoriazation for war

 

[peter grimes]

My take on this is that wasting a wayward settler or an undefended city is certainly very different from a declaration of war. These relatively small actions are more like economic skirmishes. Military units are involved on a minimal level, and there is no requirement for the economy as a whole to be redirected as a result (or in support) of the action. Meanwhile, the opposing team's economic damage is severe. It costs us almost nothing to achieve.

Declaring war, on the other hand, is more like a state deciding to enter WW2. You cannot go half way. Nabbing a settler, worker,.... totally different scale.

 

[classical_hero]

wheres the option for a simple "No", there should always be citizen authoriazation for war

That is my position also. I still think that war talk should be a joint venture between Defence and Foreign because we should need both departments to be in agreement first because it affects both ministries.

 

[fe3333au]

OK what about in the turn move ... we find the ability to 'take' a unit ... if they are allowed to take the next turn then they will 'escape' that opportunity ...

In pbem it is to restart a game ... and saving midgame is not an option ... therefore the Prez (turn taker) is faced with a dilema ... miss or take opportunity ...

If re-turntaking is allowed ... then does the Prez have to wait until consultation and ask for 24 hour extension ...

Therefore I say Prez take ... he would have an idea about our general strategy ... or maybe it has to be discussed more (upto Prez)

Any action can be 'fixed' ... captured units and city can easily be returned ... we vote for prez to make the big decisions

 

[azzaman333]

i trust that the president at the time will be intelligent enough to know what the team wants.

 

[classical_hero]

We will be giving too much powers to one man. Things might not go as planned, that is why i will prefer that it is up for team discussion such things.

 

[fe3333au]

Are you suggesting we may end up with a George Dubya

 

[peter grimes]

The only Dubya I like is a General Dubya.

But actually, the President already has those powers. We can't stop him from playing the save a particular way while he's in the middle of it. It sound to me like there are only two options:

1. President, as turnplayer, has power to capitalize on in-game opportunities that would be lost if he waited for discussion.

2. President is not permitted to take any ingame action without prior discussion with the citizenry (except defensive)

Personally, I would love for us to encounter Civ2 here... As long as we are Civ1!

 

[ybbor]

well, this poll is long closed. in both taking a setteler and a city; the president can act with a 2/3 majority of the ministers. with a worker he may act with 3/5 elected official approval.

This authroization lasts until turn 49 (poll was in effect 20 turns, taken on sept. 4th

a reminder that this is in no way a mandate for the president to take military action and that it is possible much more could be gained through diplomatic exchange.

 

[peter grimes]

Ybbor, I'm confused. When I look at the poll results, it looks to me like:

settler: Pres has full discretion

city: Pres has full discretion

worker: Pres has full discretion

Also, a point of mathematics, there really is no way for our government to achieve a 2/3 majority of elected officials. There are only five. Therefore, there will be 3/5 or 4/5. Kind of moot, but I just though I'd mention it.

 

[ybbor]

Ybbor, I'm confused. When I look at the poll results, it looks to me like:

settler: Pres has full discretion

city: Pres has full discretion

worker: Pres has full discretion

Also, a point of mathematics, there really is no way for our government to achieve a 2/3 majority of elected officials. There are only five. Therefore, there will be 3/5 or 4/5. Kind of moot, but I just though I'd mention it.

2/3 meant ministers, and as it says on the first post, I gave the numbers I did, because the poll stacked and had a 60% requirement

 

[peter grimes]

Ahhh.. Now I understand. Thanks for explaining both the 'stacking' and the subtle difference between Ministers and Elected Officials.