Proposition: Presidential use of luxuries in times of civil unrest

[Kev]

As we continue to vote and "tweak" the Tax/SciLux rate, I would like us to have a policy in place whereby the president, in the course of playing out turns, has the ability to increase the luxury rate should there be civil unrest.

I believe that before a poll can be put in place, there should be some discussion as to some general parameters - or perhaps even to deny this to the president.

Some topics that need to be covered:

* How many cities revolting should be considered National Civil Unrest?
* When should entertainers be used rather than luxuries?
* If Luxuries are to be raised, shall we prioritize taking away from Taxes or Science.
* Shall we give the president broad leeway in these circumstances and then vote before the next round of turns on how to deal with the current unrest?

I'm sure that I'm missing some, but I hope this will "get the ball rolling".

From my standpoint: In the midst of turn taking, I would just assume that the president use his best judgement to deal with any civil disorder (perhaps engaging the chat for input). When that round of turns is over, the Interior Minister can then post polls on how to deal with the unrest (if there should be any change at all from what the president instituted).

Any other thoughts?

 

[Pellaken]

Counter Proposition the use of entertainers in such times.

 

[Apollo]

I don't see there being a need for the Pres to have to raise the luxury rate. During the group of 5 or so turns that the president plays I doubt that a large number of our cities would fall into disorder unless some major changes are made, such as government switching, in which case we'd be able to plan ahead and say that the luxuries should be adjusted to the appropriate level. If one or two cities fall into disorder then the President should just use entertainers there because we have enough cities now that changing the overall luxury rate would do more damage to our science and tax income than creating a couple entertainers.

 

[Kev]

I'm inclined to agree with the entertainers issue. I also think that unless we hit anarchy by doing something naughty in a Democracy or lose the city with Mike's Chapel or something, then it's very unlikey that we'll have wide civil unrest over a short period of turns.

I would think that the president, in these times, should go ahead and choose which worker to take off their duties and make into this entertainer. I would trust him/her.