Proposed Amendment to Articles D and E

[Ashburnham]

Do you approve of the attached changes to Article D and Article E of the Constitution, regarding elimination of the Director of Commerce position and distributing its responsibilities among the other elected offices, and for clarification purposes?

Yes
No
Abstain

================================
Old text (unaffected sections are skipped)

Article D.
            1.  President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple 
                areas of different Consuls. He/she will also decide on 
                any strategic tasks not designated to another consul 
                in this constitution. The President is the primary 
                designated player. He/she has the following 
                responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee 
                a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units, 
                Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed 
                officials remain in office until removed by a 
                President. The President also leads discussion on how 
                to use military and scientific great leaders.

            4.  Consul for External Policy - Oversees long term planning 
                of policy regarding other nations. This includes 
                military plans, long term foreign affairs, and long term 
                trading goals.

            5.  Consul for Cultural Policy - Monitors culture. Pushes 
                for culture improvements. Fits science and religious 
                improvements into the big picture. Plans wonder 
                strategy.

            6.  Consul for Resources and Technology Policy - Decides on 
                long term tech queues, long term resource policies, 
                long term fiscal policies.


Article E.
            2.  Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and 
                trading. Sets exact tech queue. Also decides on espionage 
                missions.

=============================================================

New text, changes are hilighted, bold for insertions / changes, strikethrough for major deletions. Unaffected sections skipped.

Article D.
            1.  President - Leads discussions crossing over multiple 
                areas of different Consuls. [b]Sets the overall budget
                and balances financial needs.[/b]  He/she will also decide on 
                any strategic tasks not designated to another consul 
                in this constitution. The President is the primary 
                designated player. He/she has the following 
                responsibilities, and may appoint a citizen to oversee 
                a responsibility: Naming of Cities and Units, 
                Elections, and Polling Standards. These appointed 
                officials remain in office until removed by a 
                President. The President also leads discussion on how 
                to use military and scientific great leaders.

            4.  Consul for External Policy - Oversees planning 
                of policy regarding other nations. This includes 
                military [b]objectives[/b], [b]declarations of war, peace
                treaties, alliances, rights of passage, and mutual protection
                pacts.  Authorizes building of embassies, diplomatic missions,
                and espionage missions.  Authorizes trade embargoes[/b]

            5.  Consul for Cultural Policy - Monitors culture. Pushes 
                for culture improvements [b]and authorizes cash rushing of
                improvements.[/b]  Plans wonder strategy.  [b]Authorizes use of
                luxury slider vs specialists.[/b]

            6.  Consul for Resources and Technology Policy - [b]Decides on 
                tech queues, science slider, and all trades which do not involve
                items specifically listed under other consuls.  Authorizes use
                of tech and resources by other departments.[/b]

Article E.
            1.  Commander of Armed Forces - Micromanages the military 
                operations against foreign countries and unit 
                (excluding worker, settler, and non-military transport) 
                movements.  [b]Plans military operations within the boundaries
                set by the Consul for External Affairs regarding military
                objectives.  Authorizes unit upgrades within the budget
                limits set by the President.[/b]

            [s]2.  Director of Commerce - Decides on foreign affairs and 
                trading. Sets exact tech queue. Also decides on espionage 
                missions.[/s]

 

[GenMarshall]

I can certanly agree to the expantion of what each office should do. This should remove any unnessicary headaches .

 

[zyxy]

I'll vote no.

Of course I should have added to the discussion when there was time. That's what you get when you're away from your computer for a week

Maybe it's a problem of my browser, but the new text does not appear highlighted/bold for me. Also, the old "CoAF" section is missing.

I am a bit confused about the budget controls. Is there a good reason to eliminate the Commerce Director, and distribute his (and the R&T consul's) duties over 3 or 4 departments? It may well lead to more confusion and discoordination. E.g., if the president controls the budget, how can the R&T consul set the science slider?

I also agree with black_hole (in the discussion thread) that this effectively eliminates the distinction between strategic and tactical, and I think that is a pity. Like he said, some of the problems we have now can be eliminated by clarifying long vs short term, and, I would like to add, by replacing the woolly language of the constitution by clear procedures. At least we could try...

What does the statement "authorizes use of tech(nology) and resources by other departments" mean?

Why should the culture consul "push for cultural improvements"? That is not stating a duty or responsibility, it is prescribing a policy.

Who is in charge of trades that involve diplomacy and technology? External or R&T?

 

[Nobody]

some of the problems we have now can be eliminated by clarifying long vs short term,

Good point (i never saw it before) but i still think these changes are a great thing.

this effectively eliminates the distinction between strategic and tactical

is that such a bad thing.

Who is in charge of trades that involve diplomacy and technology? External or R&T?

The EC makes the trade after the R&T people

authorizes use of tech(nology) and resources by other departments

 

[classical_hero]

Now this is worthy of being in the constitution. DS, you are a genius.

 

[DaveShack]

Maybe it's a problem of my browser, but the new text does not appear highlighted/bold for me. Also, the old "CoAF" section is missing.

What browser? I'm using Firefox, and it works correctly afaik in Netscape and Explorer. The sets of 3 dots (ellipses) show areas which are not touched by this change.

I am a bit confused about the budget controls. Is there a good reason to eliminate the Commerce Director, and distribute his (and the R&T consul's) duties over 3 or 4 departments? It may well lead to more confusion and discoordination. E.g., if the president controls the budget, how can the R&T consul set the science slider?

There are two conflicting objectives -- have each area control the money for their area, but have someone to mesh the plans together. The President was already responsible for resolving disputes, this change just explicitly adds the budget to that responsibility.

What does the statement "authorizes use of tech(nology) and resources by other departments" mean?

Any trade which contains a treaty must be posted by the External Consul. If that treaty requires us to give a resource or technology, then the R&T Consul must agree. If R&T does not agree then the President must resolve the dispute.

Why should the culture consul "push for cultural improvements"? That is not stating a duty or responsibility, it is prescribing a policy.

It's a gray area. What I really want is for the Culture Consul to be able to tell the Governor "start to build a library in these five cities (blah) within the next 20 turns" and have that stick. This will be clarified in another future amendment, after suitable citizen comment.

Who is in charge of trades that involve diplomacy and technology? External or R&T?

See above answer.

 

[DaveShack]

Now this is worthy of being in the constitution. DS, you are a genius.

Aw shucks, I'm really just responding to really good feedback. A lot of the credit goes to Mad-bax, Provolution, and Strider. (yes, Strider helped me understand the real reason it didn't quite flow right before)

 

[ravensfire]

Sorry, but I've got to vote no on this.

I still like the idea of a group that focuses purely on planning, and this proposal blurs the line on that. I know, I know, that pure planning hasn't happened yet. I still believe that such a concept is both workable (with some effort at first to keep discussions focused) and the best way to handle things.

-- Ravensfire

 

[classical_hero]

Aw shucks, I'm really just responding to really good feedback. A lot of the credit goes to Mad-bax, Provolution, and Strider. (yes, Strider helped me understand the real reason it didn't quite flow right before)

That was the part of the Constitution that was really confusing. You'd often have two people doing the same job. I am very glad that we now have working constitution that is clear to understand. Thanks must go out to those who helped you in this. This is what we needed because if we had continued on this path, we would have had a mess even bigger than the end of DGV.

 

[Provolution]

I am very happy this came about, and DS did a great job in balancing challenging input here. However, I see this as a Great Step for Fanatanniankind, but a small step too.
In future amendments we can put up the Secretary of Treasury (be it the president or someone else with that function alone), strenghten the Culture with Corruption and Waste as well as Forestry management, and possibly specify how the national budget is set up b discussion and polls. Also, I would like to see Finance and Tech merge, and see Foreign Affairs and Trade merge. Finally, foreign titles would make sense.

About long term vs. short term, we need to to this defined, not fluid. But we do not need elected officials to do it. Citizens can as well think long term, by defining areas of national interest in a long term expansion plan, defining preferred wonders or technology strategies, a national budget would be good, as we saw last game and finally this map has excluded growth opportunities by new cities, as we are on a small pangea. On a map like this, I may have liked two admirals and two generals, admirals for Western and Eastern Oceans, and generals for Expedition and Home Defense.
If properly done, military can be fun and involving.

 

[zyxy]

DS,

Thanks for the reply.

What browser? I'm using Firefox, and it works correctly afaik in Netscape and Explorer. The sets of 3 dots (ellipses) show areas which are not touched by this change.

It's not very important. I am using mozilla under linux. I can see a strike-out through article E.2 (new text), but not any ellipses or bold text.

There are two conflicting objectives -- have each area control the money for their area, but have someone to mesh the plans together. The President was already responsible for resolving disputes, this change just explicitly adds the budget to that responsibility.

In the constitution we have now this is a shared responsibility between Commerce and R&T. It is a very important part of the game (in midgame possibly the most important part), and letting the President handle this AND resolve conflicts AND play the save puts a lot of power and work in the hands of one person. I prefer the current setup, where the R&T Consul decides overall slider and treasury policy, while the Commerce Director divides available funds based on requests. As the tactical layer has to comply with strategic policy, this does not put a lot of power in the hands of the Commerce Director, except perhaps if there is less money than needed .

Thanks for clearing up the statement on "use of tech and resources". If your amendment passes, I would prefer this explanation to be added to the constitution. The way it is phrased now it could easily be misunderstood to give the R&T consul virtually unlimited authority.

Concerning the "push for culture": I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say (either that, or I misunderstand your comment ). I agree that the culture consul should have the power to set targets for culture buildings or culture points. The way it is phrased now the culture consul is forced to advocate the construction of culture buildings, even if he/she thinks it is a bad idea.

 

[ravensfire]

I agree that the culture consul should have the power to set targets for culture buildings or culture points.

I agree, but to a point. Here's the problem - you start the blur the Governor's control over their cities, and that's not a good thing. In another thread, someone suggested that leaders can issue instructions like "Build X by Y turns" as acceptable. What's the minimum for Y? 20 turns? 10 turns? 1 turn? See the problem? To complicate it further (and this holds true for cash as well), what happens when multiple leaders make demands, and they can't all be accomplished. To top all of that off, the Governor's probably have their own goals and objectives that get ignored. It's not a good situation.

I want to see the Governors retain absolute and total control over their cities. All things city go through them. Now, that can obviously get overridden by the WOTP. That's the main check on their power. What I don't want to see is leader's actively trying to override Governors without consulting with them. That's rude. An example would be a leader posting a poll to "Build X in city Y in Z turns". The Governor doing that is perfect, but another leader? That's not fair to the Governor.

Requests, persuasion and reasoning will go a long way to a smooth flow. I cannot imagine a Governor refusing a request without a good reason to do so. If it happens, treat them like you would any other leader that does that.

The way it is phrased now the culture consul is forced to advocate the construction of culture buildings, even if he/she thinks it is a bad idea.

Nope! Well, not quite... If the WOTP is to build culture, then yes, they would have to. Otherwise, nope. I expect (and think that most citizens also expect) that the leaders are aware of the overall state of the game, and work within that. I see nothing wrong with a leader saying "Hold off on my area, it's not important right now".

-- Ravensfire

 

[mad-bax]

Well, I'm not sure that there is any obligation on a leader to poll anything actually. If he wants a poll then fine, but if he doesn't?

Your point about governors is well made. I would like to see target setting in some form however. If the COA wants horses and the governor builds spears or archers, whatever then that is silly. If the culture consul says build wonder X in city Y then what?

I don't know really. I still come back to this reporting line business. President decides policy, consuls flesh out policy for their portfolio, the tactical branch deliver the policy set for them using resources generated by the governors. That's how I see it working. You can't have one department thumbing its nose at another because it dismantles the game.

Back on topic, the ammendment here clarifies roles a lot. It also removes a deep rooted condradiction in terms with every finance related decision going through the commerce director.

I hope if passed, that this ammendment will replace JR9.

 

[greekguy]

Aw shucks, I'm really just responding to really good feedback. A lot of the credit goes to Mad-bax, Provolution, and Strider. (yes, Strider helped me understand the real reason it didn't quite flow right before)

i don't mean to be selfish, but i did suggest eliminating the Director of Commerce and giving the External Consul all powers over Foreign Affairs before. i said this on April 15 in the Constitution Discussion thread:

Thus, i think a lot of problems can be solved with one swift motion: eliminating the Director of Commerce. If we eliminate Commerce, then sliding the sliders can be the R & T duty (since some people say that R & T doesn't do much right now). Also, the External Consul will "have a job" and will be in control of all foreign affairs, including signing MA's, establishing embassies, and they will be the sole official who decalares war and agrees to peace.

also, i have another question: should we delay the election process a couple of days,since if this passes, we won't need to elect the director of commerce. if would be kind of stupid if we elect a director, just to tell him a few days later you don't have a job.

EDIT: i'm not looking for all the credit, just a mention would be nice.

 

[Provolution]

I agree on delaying the election process till this is clarified.
The laws are there to serve the people, not the other way around.

 

[DaveShack]

EDIT: i'm not looking for all the credit, just a mention would be nice.

My recognition of certain individuals should not be taken to mean they were the only contributors. I would also like to thank all those who commented, whether their suggestions were accepted or not. Participating in any way you can is the fuel which keeps the Demogame running.

 

[DaveShack]

On elections, we could take these approaches:

• Violate the election law by opening nominations and maybe elections late.
• Handle the election as though the amendment passes, and fix it if it doesn't
• Handle the election as though it fails, and fix things if it passes
• Treat it like it missed the deadline and play term 3 under the current rules

This could have been avoided if the poll had been posted immediately by the 3rd justice at the time of completing the review process.

My opinion is proceed as though it will pass and fix the problem if it doesn't, via an appointment to the empty office. The only drawback there is that someone who prefers Commerce might run for another office instead, and win.

Proceeding as though it fails could result in someone winning an election and getting fired, where they could have won a different election. Not acceptable in my opinion.

Having an "accident" on the election law might be the most prudent course. I promise not to CC the election office, if y'all will promise not to CC me.

 

[greekguy]

thanks for clearing that up DS, i appreciate it. on the issue of elections, i think we should postpone them, untill this poll is closed. that way we know if there is a need for Director of Commerce election or not.

 

[MOTH]

What is the exact timeframe for opening nominations and election polls? Although this has implications in many offices I'd say we make sure that whoever accepts nominations understand the changes that are likely to pass. Its a good first debate question. Even for commerce if anyone accepts.

 

[ravensfire]

On elections, we could take these approaches:

• Violate the election law by opening nominations and maybe elections late.
• Handle the election as though the amendment passes, and fix it if it doesn't
• Handle the election as though it fails, and fix things if it passes
• Treat it like it missed the deadline and play term 3 under the current rules

This could have been avoided if the poll had been posted immediately by the 3rd justice at the time of completing the review process.

My opinion is proceed as though it will pass and fix the problem if it doesn't, via an appointment to the empty office. The only drawback there is that someone who prefers Commerce might run for another office instead, and win.

Proceeding as though it fails could result in someone winning an election and getting fired, where they could have won a different election. Not acceptable in my opinion.

Having an "accident" on the election law might be the most prudent course. I promise not to CC the election office, if y'all will promise not to CC me.

DS - you won't, but I'll bet that someone will. No, not me - I wouldn't see the reason for it.

Honestly, just handle this by running the elections straight. When it passes, handle things from there. An office is gone, we wish the person holding it well, and duties change for various offices.

No need to point fingers, no need to get fancy. We've got some people who will demand the rules are followed, and I can guarantee that I would support that right. After all, it's only hard the first time you go against the rules ... After all, it would make things easier. Surely we'd never do that again, or use this as precedent ...

Right?

-- Ravensfire