Preemption of Powers.

[Alphawolf]

As I am currently editing the Triumvirate Government because of comments, polls, and to make it legal with the constitution, I am requesting ya'll thoughts on what the Preemption powers should be. The Poll approved preemption powers 11 to 6. I would like comments in three areas:
1. Who has the Power of preemption? The President, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, or the Triumvirate as a whole?
2. When can the office holder preempt powers (during War), does the disaffected party have recourse to get the powers back, and if so how?
3. The third and most important area; what powers can be preempted (workers, improvements, units) and from whom?

Thanks in advance

-the Wolf

 

[I am the Future]

I believe that if war is declared on us the secretary of war should get all war powers for 10 turns at which point controll will be handed back over to the citizens.
Or are we talking about to different things?

 

[Alphawolf]

Or are we talking about to different things?

No war iswhat we are talking about.

-the Wolf

 

[I am the Future]

Ok, I also think that controll should be given over all units and town production except in towns that are building wonders, great and national

 

[ravensfire]

Ok, I also think that controll should be given over all units and town production except in towns that are building wonders, great and national

Why just those? What about cities that are preparing to build a critical wonder? What about a city working towards a critical resource?

Part of the DG is the conflict for scarce resources. Often, that scarce resource is build time. One leader wants workers, another wants settlers, someone wants defensive troops, and still another is calling for more culture! And then you have the poor citizen who's trying to run that city.

The decision here is essentially do you want a strong federal government, or strong states.

With a strong federal government, various states will have to be defined for when a leader can toss the governor aside, and run the city on their own. Likewise, some provision will have to be made for when MULTIPLE leaders can do the same thing - who gets the final decision?

The control for this, as stated by several supporters in other threads, is through elections when that leader can be grilled about taking over, or not taking over, in various situations.

With a strong state government, the Governor will always retain final control over their cities. When a leader needs something, they talk to the Governor, and work out a plan to accomplish that goal. The governor coordinates the various requests and comes up with a single plan.

The control for this is pretty much the same as above - elections. Governors are judged by their ability to handle (or not handle) requests and still keep the city going.

My preference is strong states. Our Governors know the cities best - why toss them aside. Why take the people who know their cities, and can balance all requests and keep their cities going in the direction they have been planning for the entire turn.

Don't support the powergrab - support the rights of Governors to run their cities.

-- Ravensfire

 

[I am the Future]

Power is good. If you trust the one in power then you should give them as much controll as they require to win the war. You want to win wars don't you? Sometimes a litle bit of security must be sacrifised to win. I believe that is what the demogame is about. Winning.

I would be very dissapointed if we end up haveing to many minds pulling in to many directions. Allow one person total controll for a time and then after the initial blast has been scuffed out give the people back their control.

The only reason my plan spares cities building wonders is that their is ore then one way to win a war. And haveing a good culture especially in boarder cities can cause some to turn over once the war is over. The person in charge early in the war should relize this is why they are prhibited from effecting those cities building.

 

[ravensfire]

I would be very dissapointed if we end up haveing to many minds pulling in to many directions. .

You say this, but you're perfectly okay with different people interrupting the governor so they can run his city for him? You say this, but are fine with having multiple leader assert control of the city?



-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

The important thing for most of us who have been in the position of civic pride being in conflict with national goals is to be asked to do what is right for the good of the nation, and not told what we have to do.

I would like to see additional checks and balances on this power, if it does indeed end up in the law. I know, this is a process, which I don't generally like, but in this case I think due process must be followed to protect the feelings and future participation of the official whose area would be usurped.

1. Leader with override capability declares that an emergency situation exists, and specific actions which need to be taken based on that emergency.
2. Affected officials have at least a 24 hour time period to state they agree with the needed actions, and adjust their plans / instructions accordingly.
3. If some official has not adjusted plans by the end of the time period in step 2, the official desiring override must ask some body of more than one citizen (Judiciary or possibly even a poll of citizens) to ratify that the override is necessary.
4. If the override is ratified, then the override instructions are inserted into the instruction thread. If the override fails, then the original instructions stand.
5. No official can attempt to use an override more often than once per n turns.

Reasons for having such a lengthly process:

• All offices must be important. Many of our citizens need to have a role in order to keep them interested in the game. If someone gets elected or appointed to an office only to be swept aside when the first crisis hits, he/she may decide it's not worth it to be a puppet.
• Everyone who is in favor of preemption should think through a scenario where they are the official who is going to be preempted. Would you like to have your job suddenly taken away, or would you rather rise to the crisis yourself?
• It is important to have the right to dissent. Once upon a demogame, a long time ago, we ended up in a war which some citizens didn't want, some of whom were governors and advisors. In protest those people gave instructions which were intended to keep the President from being able to effectively prosecute the war. Right or wrong, their rights were important to them, and with a blanket preemption rule that right of protest would be taken away.

 

[Gloriana]

I agree with Daveshack here. The power of preemption is indeed a great one and should not be turned to lightly. I don't see the need of preemption immediately upon entering a state of war. It's not as if the government we have so carefully built up suddenly stops functioning, it just needs some adjustment to a new situation.

I believe the Triumvirate should have the power to decide whether they want to take control, or can decide to have one of the three of them to take control over the production of cities and troop movement. They should be able to hold this power for no longer than X turns (to be decided by debate), after which they can ask the people for an extended mandate which can be granted by a binding referendum.

 

[Alphawolf]

Thanks for the comments, the preemption powers that I included in v5.0 we modeled on the mobilization system of Civ3. See HERE.

-the Wolf