Does it? Now the people can remove a leader from office at any time and much faster than we can now. Therefor the leaders will have to listen to the people. And besides, we are a team here, and there are few or none hostile disagreements. I don't see any reason to be afraid that power will be removed from the people.
Now it is acctualy 6 to 4 in support of this proposal. Please tell me what you do not like about it, so we can discuss and eventualy change it, so we can get this revolution over with!
1) I think the save should be given to dedicated people to this game not just the administrators.
2) Question: Say the adminstrator of External Affairs wants to have someone in charge of the Department of Treaties and Alliances. Would the Head of the T&A Department be able to be an ambassador of one or more civilization? With limited people resources, this sort of thing might have to be done.
3) Is it the soley the adminstrator's decision to have a trade Dept, T&A Dept, ambassadors, etc...? decided by citizens? By only the first External Administrator?
4) I don't like the name 'administrator of blah blah.' Can't we just use 'minister?'
1) Then a list of dedicated players who should get the save and follow instructions sounds good to me. And as I see it both ordinary members and administrators can be on the list and play the save. The important thing is that we can play this game more efficiently.
2) I see no reason why a member of the Council of External Policy couldn't hold such a position and be ambassador. The whole point of this proposal is to minimize the number of people we need, while still allowing more people to join.
3) As I figured it, it is soley the administrators' decision how he want to take care of his responsibilities. If he want to have some departments etc, he makes them. The next administrator can of course change this again. And I am confident that the administrators will follow the will of the people, cause the people will have a powerfull way to get rid of an administrator.
4) Hm. I don't like the title of 'minister' that much, but no titles are final. If it is the general feeling that 'minister' is better I will agree that we should change them.
I believe the power of the people are taken very well care of by two reasons:
1) It is extremly easy to start the process of removing an administrator, and changes of this kind should go quite quickly.
2) This is a game, we are a team, and frankly, I for one do not believe those who are elected as administrators will hijack the game at any time. We are friends here and as far as I remember we have a history (both in the MSDG and the normal demogame) of coorporation and that the leaders follow the will of the people as best as they can.
If you want to hear one theoretical problem with this proposal, I got one here. The Administrator of Internal Control is supposed to have the list of how many active members we have. By changing this he could render the ability to remove an adminstrator unworkable (since it depends on a majority of the members to vote).
Anyway, that is just a theoretical problem. I seriously doubt we will ever have to remove an administrator because he is trying to hijack the game.
How about the Chief Executive, Director of External Policy, and Commander of the armed forces? These people will also be known as council leaders.
Of course, we should still have a Chief Justice.
I would put a separate poll up. In that poll ask if someone wants this one, your modifications, their own changes, keep things the way they are, or abstain.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
