New law proposal - Keep Fanatica Happy Law

[Chieftess]

You can increase the lux slider instead of using an entertainer (which is the perferred method in most games, actually..). It wouldn't have to starve. Also, it's not the #1 priority to keep everyone happy.... just happy enough that they don't riot. Using the lux slider saves cities a few shields that would've been wasted by an entertainer.

 

[Lance]

Lux. slider does not affect during anarchy, becouse no currency is being used.

And anyway it's still not clear that keeping one city away from rioting should be no1 priority, if for example research would suffer from slider adjustment.

I also senced that opinions were that if some riht should be given to DP, it would be the changing labour to entertainers, not the slider.

In the situation mentioned above, I still don't think the deceision should be up to DP.

 

[tao]

I'm strongly in favor of giving the DP some flexibility wrt the slider and the creation on specialists and/or entertainers:

a) He/she should always have the right to lower science/lux if this is possible without effects (except generating more taxes).

b) He/she should have the right to increase lux in order to prevent riots in case of war weariness.

c) He/she should have the standing order to mm cities in turns of anarchy for lone scientist and max food.

d) He/she should have the right to increase lux, IF this is necessary to pursue a goal agreed beforehand (e.g. grow pop in city XY to size Z).

 

[Eklektikos]

Originally posted by Lance
And anyway it's still not clear that keeping one city away from rioting should be no1 priority, if for example research would suffer from slider adjustment.

The law as currently worded would only give the DP the authority to take action to combat civil disorder, not require him to do so regardless of any other consideration.

 

[Lance]

Originally posted by Eklektikos

The law as currently worded would only give the DP the authority to take action to combat civil disorder, not require him to do so regardless of any other consideration.

I understand that, but I would't be ready to give DP that kind of power to overrule istructions given by authors, especially, since the case is not always with just one possible right decision.

What I'm saying, is, that becouse we already have people deciding city issues, why should DP have the power to overrule those decisions?

 

[RoddyVR]

For example during anarchy it is possible that forcing a city happy causes starvation. And that kind of situation needs a decision. Wether let them riot, or let them starve. And that decision is not for DP to make, witch would be the case with this law

not it woulnd be the case, it would only make it the DP's decision if those who's decision it SHOULD BE werent careful enough to actualy MAKE the decision. it does not give the DP the authority to do anything CONTRARY to the instructions of the person in charge of that city. it only lets him deal with a BAD situation that is NOT accounted for in the orders for that city.
and if a city cannot stay at its current size and NOT riot, then it SHOULD starve (or build a worker/settler). as it will NEVER be productive at its current size (if its always in riot).
those responsible for a city should always make sure that it does not outgrow its hapiness limit and degrade into a rioting mob.

Lux. slider does not affect during anarchy, becouse no currency is being used.

either you have WAY too much anarchy in your games, or you're refering to the rioting of a single city. in the second case, most of the time, that can get caught BEFORE the city riots (as in its grown and now has more unhappy then happy people and will riot if nothing is changed before next turn).
in THAT case, the slider will have effect, but here i actualy agree that the slider shoudnt be used, because of its widespread affect on the restof the empire.



What seems to be the major issue for a lot of those against this proposal (i didnt call it a law, cause that's an issue too it seems) is that it seems to give the DP the right to throw out the instructions for a city and do what he pleases.
Well, it doesnt. think about it.
this would only apply when a city goes into riot (or is about to).
if the orders for that city are "have everyone working and making a library", then having the city go into riot is MUCH more devistating to the desired result of the orders then having one of the workers become an entertainer. the library will get done later then "expected" anyway, but atleast it will have SOME work done on it.
if the person that did the orders for the city actualy KNEW that it would go into riot, then he SHOULD have put orders to deal with it. if he did then this "law" does not apply and the DP cant decide on his own what to do with the city.

unless of course you think that a governer's orders should be followed even if they say "disband every city in the province, i'm quiting this stupid game". i know this is an exageration, but its the same principal. if a governer's orders are NOT detailed/forsightfull enough to deal with a riot then the DP should deal with it, because otherwise all the orders for that city become completely WASTED cause the city is rioting while the orders assume that its producing.

 

[Lance]

When a city is in a riot, there may be two reasons for it (And now I meen in the DemoGame).

First, by far the more common reason, I suppose, is the governors mistake, the fact that he/she haven't seen the rioting coming. In these cases this kind of rule would work fine.

But since there is another possibility, that he/she intentionally let a city to riot, (he/she made a decision), it makes the situation a little more complicating. I know that kind of situation is rare, but it does exist.

For example, we take a city witch in normal conditions can feed it's citizens and keep running with two entertainers. We go to revolution; a few turns of anarchy; The food production is reduced by one per square (assuming they produce more than two). Now this city needs more labour to produce food needed to feed the citizens. This may not be possible without a riot. So, here we have situation witch needs to be decided. Wether have starvation or a riot. And THIS should be decided by the gorvernor of the city, not by the DP, I think.

This problem (if anyone else even sees there a problem) could perhaps be solved. For example, when a governor thinks that letting a city riot is the right choise, he/she should say that specifically in directions. So if riot is not even mentioned in directions, THEN DP could step ahead and correct the situation.

 

[Cyc]

First of all, I would like to say that Lance is making some very good, clear points here, that everyone should consider, including those that are blindly accepting this proposal as a cureall for the current Senate problem. Governors have feelings too, and even though some just get elected by their friends and then don't do their job, doesn't mean that most Governors don't put a lot of work into their Province.

Secondly, I disagree with DaveShack in his statement that you people should decide whether you want the proposed amendment to the CoS, and then decide how to get it there. That's not very efficient. I guess you can debate this all you want, but for what? In order to make this fly, you're going to have to make drastic changes in the Articles of the Constitution. Then you'll have to make more changes in the Code of Laws. Then, and only then, will you be able to write this new amendment up in a way that pleases enough people to get it ratified. Dig in, People. You're in for the long haul.

Originally posted by RoddyVR

not it woulnd be the case, it would only make it the DP's decision if those who's decision it SHOULD BE werent careful enough to actualy MAKE the decision. it does not give the DP the authority to do anything CONTRARY to the instructions of the person in charge of that city. it only lets him deal with a BAD situation that is NOT accounted for in the orders for that city.

This is not true, RoddyVR. This law clearly says that if the posted Instructions can't keep the city from going into unhappiness, the DP is free to make changes. OK? Changes. Even if the Governor did assign the laborers in a fashion to reduce unhapiness, like making one of them a clown, and it didn't work, the DP clears the table with this proposal and does what they want. No restrictions are put on the DP as far as what they can or cannot do. The DP can say "Hey, let's clear all these laborers off this city screen and put them where I want...". No one sees things like this, they just blindly approve of it. I have seen a President ruthlessly cut through a Governors Instructions just because they thought they had the power to do it, and wouldn't get caught. Pay attention, People.

and if a city cannot stay at its current size and NOT riot, then it SHOULD starve (or build a worker/settler). as it will NEVER be productive at its current size (if its always in riot).
those responsible for a city should always make sure that it does not outgrow its hapiness limit and degrade into a rioting mob.

I agree with the last sentance but the first two are kind of iffy.

either you have WAY too much anarchy in your games, or you're refering to the rioting of a single city. in the second case, most of the time, that can get caught BEFORE the city riots (as in its grown and now has more unhappy then happy people and will riot if nothing is changed before next turn).
in THAT case, the slider will have effect, but here i actualy agree that the slider shoudnt be used, because of its widespread affect on the restof the empire.

This paragraph is randomly correct. At first your talking about Anarchy and then you slide into city growth. Both are cureable by hiring entertainers, but I can't see your agreement of the slider not working here as a gel to solidify the two differences.

What seems to be the major issue for a lot of those against this proposal (i didnt call it a law, cause that's an issue too it seems) is that it seems to give the DP the right to throw out the instructions for a city and do what he pleases.
Well, it doesnt. think about it.

Thank you for not calling it a Law. It is a Standard. I have thought about it and addressed this statement of yours above.
It doe give the DP sweeping power to do what he wishes.

this would only apply when a city goes into riot (or is about to).

Wrong, this would only be effective after the fact.

if the orders for that city are "have everyone working and making a library", then having the city go into riot is MUCH more devistating to the desired result of the orders then having one of the workers become an entertainer. the library will get done later then "expected" anyway, but atleast it will have SOME work done on it.
if the person that did the orders for the city actualy KNEW that it would go into riot, then he SHOULD have put orders to deal with it. if he did then this "law" does not apply and the DP cant decide on his own what to do with the city.

I agree, this paragraph makes sense. But you have called it a Law in this one, sooo...

unless of course you think that a governer's orders should be followed even if they say "disband every city in the province, i'm quiting this stupid game". i know this is an exageration, but its the same principal. if a governer's orders are NOT detailed/forsightfull enough to deal with a riot then the DP should deal with it, because otherwise all the orders for that city become completely WASTED cause the city is rioting while the orders assume that its producing.

You're right, that is quite an exageration. Most times a Governor will foresee rioting caused by natural growth. Most Citizens will know that rioting will occur during Anarchy. These situations can be dealt with appropriately by the people in charge of these things. If they're not doing it, they shouldn't have the job. What's so difficult to understand about that? This game has almost been out for 2.5 years. Who here has just purchased the game for the first time and is unsure about the way the game is played? Raise yer hand..... OK, I see no hands. This is not that difficult. Giving the DP this power as SOP is dangerous. You have been warned.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Cyc
This game has almost been out for 2.5 years. Who here has just purchased the game for the first time and is unsure about the way the game is played? Raise yer hand..... OK, I see no hands. This is not that difficult. Giving the DP this power as SOP is dangerous. You have been warned.

That's a rather weak argument I think. "I've had this game for 2 years. I am a good player. Therefore, all players who have had the game for 2 years are good players". But, it also holds true that there are players who have had the game for two years, and are NOT good players.

When I had civ1, and Civ2, sure I read some strategies at TUC2S/Apolyton, but I was far from great. I had Civ1 since 1991, Civ2 since 1995. I still made newbie mistakes, like irragating grassland during despotism, building rails over forests (you get no extra bonus if you do that, and I've seen it done last game, too). I used to let my cities riot before defaulting to an entertainer, since I never knew when it would riot.

Sure, I read these forums and got better, but only after playing in SGs with Sullla. Before then, I never really understood about happiness related to difficulty level. Why don't you go and do a poll in the polls forum, and sample what level users play at? Why do you think participation slacked off in DG2 when we were at emperor level?

Why not just put the budget (and slider) back in the hands of the domestic advisor, where it was for the past 3 games? Sure the senate's gonna have less to do, but atleast they can still ratify new laws. If the senate is made up of governors, then governors already have their own provinces and build queues to worry about. There's also other happiness things to consider, like war wariness. That's one of the invisible factors that creep into a game, and pops up suddenly.

This isn't the case of one law, but a bunch of them that give the president very little flexibility in managing the civ. One way or another, production is going to be hurt because certain things can't be micromanaged. (whether it's happiness, troop movement, etc.).

BTW, what do you mean by SOP?

I have seen a President ruthlessly cut through a Governors Instructions just because they thought they had the power to do it, and wouldn't get caught. Pay attention, People.

That's because you had an entire province on wealth in DG2, and the advisors, as citizens, saw that as a bad idea, in which the override vote was called. (as those workers could have been used to improve terrain in more productive provinces).

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Chieftess


That's a rather weak argument I think. "I've had this game for 2 years. I am a good player. Therefore, all players who have had the game for 2 years are good players". But, it also holds true that there are players who have had the game for two years, and are NOT good players.

When I had civ1, and Civ2, sure I read some strategies at TUC2S/Apolyton, but I was far from great. I had Civ1 since 1991, Civ2 since 1995. I still made newbie mistakes, like irragating grassland during despotism, building rails over forests (you get no extra bonus if you do that, and I've seen it done last game, too). I used to let my cities riot before defaulting to an entertainer, since I never knew when it would riot.

I've had Sid's Civ games just as long as you've had them CT. It has been over a decade. I am not saying, as you put it that all players are supposed to be good after having the game for two years, you're just bending my words. Everyone makes mistakes, that comes with the territory. I remember when I was a Governor that I wanted to railroad a forest because I needed railroad through that portion of my Province and the forest had a road on it already. But some President tried to tell me that I was doing the wrong thing and ignored my orders. 1. My Instruction was a lot quicker than build road and THEN a railroad elsewhere, and 2. that President had no right making a judgment call on the worthiness of my Instruction. Luckily the arrogant President got nailed with 3 PI's. There is nothing wrong with a Governor being creative with their Instructions, but there is something wrong with a President ignoring or discounting a Governor's Instructions.

Why not just put the budget (and slider) back in the hands of the domestic advisor, where it was for the past 3 games? Sure the senate's gonna have less to do, but atleast they can still ratify new laws. If the senate is made up of governors, then governors already have their own provinces and build queues to worry about.

I have no problem putting the Budget back into the hands of the Internal Affairs Minister. When I was Domestic Leader, I designed my own Budgetary system, that helped our nation grow over 300%. Let's do it.

This isn't the case of one law, but a bunch of them that give the president very little flexibility in managing the civ. One way or another, production is going to be hurt because certain things can't be micromanaged. (whether it's happiness, troop movement, etc.).

I'm one of the people who was in favor of giving the President due power to do the little things that needed to be done to move the game along, but there is no reason to put a focused but sweeping Standard like this into play that officially gives the President unregulated power. Other avenues of needed correction are already in play that can be improved upon.

BTW, what do you mean by SOP?

SOP stands for Standard Operating Procedure. It's pretty much a universal acronym.

That's because you had an entire province on wealth in DG2, and the advisors, as citizens, saw that as a bad idea, in which the override vote was called. (as those workers could have been used to improve terrain in more productive provinces).

Now you're stepping way out of line here, CT, as if I don't expect that from you. The three PI's I nailed you with were done when I was Governor of The North Province, not Tempest Province. When I was Governor of The North Province you were once again neglecting Governor Instructions and doing what you damn well pleased. That's why the People convicted you in 3 Public Investigations. The situation that you speak of in Tempest Province was an attempt by me to keep you, as President once again, form turning my Province into a Worker Factory (nearly all the cities) even though the game was almost finished an we had over 150 Workers running around doing nothing. Get a grip CT.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think it would be fine to come up with a law that empowers the President to deal with unrest. But I would draw the line at unrest occuring, and then taking action.

It is still the clear responsibility of the Governor to plan in a way that prevents rioting from occuring. However, the President needs to act in accordance with the will of the people to advance the nation, and as such, I think it is reasonable that he can take action immediately after unrest occurs.

Obviously we would need to change the laws to allow for it.

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: Cyc, stop trying to make this personal.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[donsig]

X.  Keep Fanatica Happy
  1.  Should a city or cities be or actively rioting or in imminent danger of rioting next turn, 
      and the posted instructions cannot resolve the rioting or impending rioting,
      the DP shall be empowered to alter the slider ratio and / or hire 
      Entertainers as needed to maintain a peaceful state in the city 
      or cities.
    a.  Actions taken by the DP under this law supercede any posted instructions.  
  b.  If the DP takes such an action, they shall reference this in the 
      turn chat log, and in the summary posted at the conclusion of the 
      turn chat.

That is my proposal. I see nothing constitutionally wrong with this law. If the people pass the law then it is clear that the *will of the people* is such that they want the DP to be able to avoid riots and civil disorder in our cities.

I would point out that this law could be repealed or amended later on later on if we want to take away or modify this new authority given to the DP. We have only a few choices in this matter:

1) A law such as this empowering the DP to supercede posted instructions.

2) Let the riots happen.

3) Pass a law requiring a F1 check every turn and rquiring play to be stopped every time a city riots or is about to riot.

Option one seems to be the best. Now lets get the wording down and see if we can pass this law.

Note: I see your concerns Bill_in_PDX but it is possible to see if a city will riot next turn using the F1 screen. Perhaps we should including wording requiring that a save be posted prior to the DP making a change under this new law. That would cover the DP and prove he or she was actually using the law properly and not just to make changes to prevent rioting many turns down the road.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I can support donsig's well presented proposed law.

 

[Chieftess]

I agree with that law. Now, if only we could add something about moving the slider in the event that the science rate can be lowered without costing more turns. (i.e., Philosophy in 1 turn at 100%, and at 40%).

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Chieftess
I agree with that law. Now, if only we could add something about moving the slider in the event that the science rate can be lowered without costing more turns. (i.e., Philosophy in 1 turn at 100%, and at 40%).

CT, I'm hoping, REALLY, REALLY hoping, that with the active Senate we should have this term (consider that a challenge, Senators!), the Senate instructions will explicitly allow for just that.

-- Ravensfire

 

[tao]

Originally posted by donsig
X. Keep Fanatica Happy
1. Should a city or cities be or actively rioting or in imminent danger of rioting next turn,
and the posted instructions cannot resolve the rioting or impending rioting,
the DP shall be empowered to alter the slider ratio and / or hire
Entertainers as needed to maintain a peaceful state in the city
or cities.

Since we have some citizens who like to argue about wording, I suggest to say "entertainers or specialists".

 

[Lance]

Since there may (?) be a problem with the constitution, I would propose the following:

Instead of giving the DP the power to decide what to do with rioting, we could add some demands to istructions sent by governors and senate about happiness issues.

That is, governors shoud always include instructions how DP should act in the case of surprising rioting. For example: "If rioting should seem to occur in any city in my province, enough entertainers must be made to avoid riot".That same goes for senate, about the slider.

So we could adjust the section C in the CoL so that these instructions MUST be included in the instructions sent to TCIT.

Would this help about the issue with the constitution, Cyc?

 

[War_Mongrol]

I whole heartedly agree with Lance, governors/mayors upon taking office should create an emergency plan for their city/ies. If a city is mayorless then the governor should create an emergency plan. If the city does have a mayor then they should propose an emregency plan to their governor and upon acceptance by the governor be posted in one uniform post where cities are categorized by province. Then should the event arise that one city falls into disorder the DP has exclusive instructions from the governor. This way the DP does have the authority to deal with the situation, yet still leaving control to the governor/mayor.
These emergency instructions are of course open to discussion by citizens.