Constitution Discussion: Article D, Executive Branch

[DaveShack]

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.

 

[Octavian X]

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.

 

[Cyc]

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.

Well, duuh... 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!

 

[Noldodan]

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

 

[Black_Hole]

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

 

[Epimethius]

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

Or, better yet, change to my proposal!

 

[Octavian X]

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.

 

[Sarevok]

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.

 

[Octavian X]

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.

 

[Black_Hole]

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?

 

[Epimethius]

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.

 

[Octavian X]

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.

 

[Sarevok]

would the sub management team be elected or appointed by the MIA?

Interesting question... I dont know...

 

[Cheetah]

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.

 

[gert-janl]

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.

 

[Epimethius]

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.

 

[DaveShack]

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?

 

[gert-janl]

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?

 

[Sarevok]

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.

 

[DaveShack]

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.