Offcial Seperating the Departments

[Octavian X]

Peri's right - You'd need to amend the constitution first, anyway.

We have these amendment systems in place to ensure that we don't go making these decisions willy-nilly. While it's no fun, I agree, to have to jump though certain hops to amend our rules, this poll certainly shows me that a lot more discussion is still needed on this subject.

 

[ravensfire]

No need has been demonstrated for this change - vote NO.

As has already been pointed out, significant changes will be need to multiple documents to accomplish this change. At a minimum, Article D of the Constitution must be changed along with Sections B, F, and G of the Code of Laws. Perhaps others - that was a quick look through the books.

The process for changing the Constitution is found in Article I, while Section J covers the Code of Laws. A brief summary of the process can be found here (and in the following post).

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by FortyJ
Breaking Culture off from Internal Affairs will not accomplish what you hope to accomplish. The Culture Leader will soon find himself/herself with nothing to do, just as nearly all previous Culture Leaders have discovered in terms past.

Yes, with Babylon bordering our cities, the Culture Ministry will swell with false bravado as that token addition to the Executive Council attempts to drum up support for building cultural improvements in border towns, but even that enthusiasm will fade as they recognize that the true power over such decisions remains vested in its proper place, with the regional governors.

Trade and Technology actually makes more sense, but I still disagree with the motion on the floor to split the department in two. We have yet to give this department a true opportunity to show how efficient it can be compared to the traditional alternative.

The fact that these departments have worked as separate entities in the past is nothing more than evidence to the fact that the Science Leader has consistently deferred to the inherent authority of the Trade Leader on matters of Technology related trades. Now, we're proposing to take the authority for tech related trades away from the Trade Leader. How is this a better solution than the current situation? Are we going to see two polls covering a similar trade with another nation (one posted by Trade for a lux for gpt deal, the other posted by Science for the same lux for a tech)? What happens if they both pass? Which takes priority?

Splitting Culture away from Internal Affairs will produce a department with little real power. Splitting Trade and Technology will create two departments that will inevitably clash over some issues unless one leader defers to the other on potentially conflicting issues.

I again urge the citizens to give the current system a fair chance.

Culture will have plenty to do, when we need it and during the times (like the end of the game) when we don't need it that much, it still has the useful purpose of being able to introduce new players into our executive department. The purpose of the culture minister is to get culture improvements built in cities that need them. They can easily do that without even asking the regional governors, post a poll saying something like "Should we build a temple in x" list why we need one, and the govonor will be forced to follow the will of the people (if it passes of course).

We have given it two months of opportunity, and it has already showed us that it won't work. The job doesn't get easier, it gets harder as our empire expands and grows. It is aleady showing signs of being unstable, yet you propose that we wait untill it crash's?

If the leaders crash over issue's, then we go to the CoC, that's why it's there. Also, nonetheless they must follow the will of the people. If the trade minister proposes trading Currency, 35g, and a world map for Monarchy, and the people say yes, the science minister can not do anything about it.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by ravensfire
No need has been demonstrated for this change - vote NO.

As has already been pointed out, significant changes will be need to multiple documents to accomplish this change. At a minimum, Article D of the Constitution must be changed along with Sections B, F, and G of the Code of Laws. Perhaps others - that was a quick look through the books.

The process for changing the Constitution is found in Article I, while Section J covers the Code of Laws. A brief summary of the process can be found here (and in the following post).

-- Ravensfire

Talk about trying to delay the inevitable, fine I'll post a new poll, but it is much more likely to hurt your standpoint more than help.

 

[Peri]

Can a mod close this poll please.