Term Limits

[Donovan Zoi]

I think the discussion here has been open-minded on both sides of this issue, but I am going to side with Greek Guy that this is a non-issue. Unless I am mistaken, there has not been a problem with run-away elected dictators in the past and we have no real indication that there will be one this time around.

Yes, but we really haven't seen much of CT yet in this forum.

All light-hearted kidding of moderator/participants aside, I really don't feel that we need to overreact here. Most leaders seem to instinctually limit themselves to no more than two terms at a particular position before moving on to something else.

Now, if a respected sage makes plans for a third term, who are we to try and stop them if it benefits the nation as a whole? The people themselves should have the power to decide via elections whether they want to continue on the same grand path blazed by this candidate, or toss him out on his ear because they are tired of looking at his ugly all-too-familiar mug.

 

[RegentMan]

Wait, I'm confused. Term limits as in the number of terms in a row you can hold an office or term limits as in, say, one month per term?

 

[Alphawolf]

Wait, I'm confused. Term limits as in the number of terms in a row you can hold an office or term limits as in, say, one month per term?

Number in a row.

-the Wolf

 

[Provolution]

I agree with Cyc, we should CYC-le the players around positions. Cronyism and Comraderie sucks, and we know how that works out, Term limits is the only way to counter the effect of voting blocs and in order to sustain the political party system. This will change the game from a feudal variant of past Civ3 demogames to one of a parliamentarian model I always called for. For too long the American Presidential model has been prevalent in the single player demogames, and now is a time to try out a more transatlantic version, encompassing both the US and the European systems.

 

[Man'O'Action]

Cronyism and Comraderie sucks, and we know how that works out, Term limits is the only way to counter the effect of voting blocs and in order to sustain the political party system.

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm new. Perhaps someone can clear this up, in the past demogames what player and party took control of the game? Who is it that was unfairly elected for extended number of turns?

Has there been a notorious voting block that "unfairly" voted together? Can one of the more veteran members tell us about when this happened in the past that we are concerned about it now?

 

[ravensfire]

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm new. Perhaps someone can clear this up, in the past demogames what player and party took control of the game? Who is it that was unfairly elected for extended number of turns?

Has there been a notorious voting block that "unfairly" voted together? Can one of the more veteran members tell us about when this happened in the past that we are concerned about it now?

Oh, that's just Provo and his usual paranoia.

The closest that we've come are various President/DP's that ignored instructions and went with their own viewpoints. It's happened, much drama has ensued. It's actually been a while, but the drama in a few cases is still remembered, and is the reason for various parts of the ruleset.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Octavian X]

I'm for term limits. Nothing restrictive, though, as there's a fine line between being experienced at an office and holding onto power for too long - something like three or four terms is about where I draw the line.

 

[Stilgar08]

Quite incorrect - you'll find that Governor's can hold a great deal of power.

Within their domain, Governors rule supreme - determining what cities build what, what land improvements will be made, how city labor is allocated. A military might want more troops, but its up to the Governors to determine when, and how many to build.

Don't undersestimate the power of Governors, just because their operate on a limited geographic scale. If anything, they are among the most powerful leaders, and generally the most active.

-- Ravensfire

I don't doubt that the governor HAS a lot of power in his/her ways. Nevertheless I think putting term-limits on the governors would be too much of a hassle, especially in the late-game.

Since I'm a Newb just like the honorable Man'O'Action (who's obviously NOT from the lower saxony ) a question occured to me: If the governors have the last say in what to build in their city, how is it coordinated throughout the whole civ/government/tri that vital builds won't get postponed or that governors don't try to improve their city to get the best of the whole civ? I mean sometimes it's more important to upgrade your military or build a worker instead of improving an outpost which had only been built to aquire (sp.?) strategic ressources- Is there some sort of governor-assembly under supervision of the DP or the Sec. of the Interior??

 

[ravensfire]

That's a good question, and it will always be an issue.

The answer is communication and persuation. Governors do have to be sensitive to the needs of the nation as a whole. After all, it doesn't matter if they have a massive wonder city when an invading army blows through inadequate defenses.

Cities will often be under competing demands - military, growth, development, research, etc. Placing ultimate control of a city's queue under the Governor means there is someone that is balancing those demands who is focused on that city. Like all leaders, Governors are responsible to the nation as a whole, and must respect and support plans that involve their city.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm new. Perhaps someone can clear this up, in the past demogames what player and party took control of the game? Who is it that was unfairly elected for extended number of turns?

Has there been a notorious voting block that "unfairly" voted together? Can one of the more veteran members tell us about when this happened in the past that we are concerned about it now?

That's not Provolution's paranoia. That's Ravensfire bucking for Modship.

It's not something one of us could explain to a person with 59 posts, Man'O'Action. There are no specific points where we could send you to read and say, "Ah, yes. I understand now", as they just don't exist. You will/would have to experience it first hand. Just remember that Moderators here very seldom lose their arguements openly.

Oh, and by the way, as there is an option for an existing civfanatic to change their log-on handle (and another option for them to disclose that fact or not), I wonder sometimes just how many newbies we really do have in the forums.

 

[ravensfire]

That's not Provolution's paranoia. That's Ravensfire bucking for Modship.

Hey no - no insults!

It's not something one of us could explain to a person with 59 posts, Man'O'Action. There are no specific points where we could send you to read and say, "Ah, yes. I understand now", as they just don't exist. You will/would have to experience it first hand. Just remember that Moderators here very seldom lose their arguements openly.

Well, maybe just one of 'em ...

-- Ravensfire

 

[Alphawolf]

In the final tally term limits codified in law won out with 18 out of 33 votes. I believe we should start a thread to discuss what kind of term limits we want. I'll go start one on citizens now.

-the Wolf

 

[Cyc]

Hey no - no insults!


Well, maybe just one of 'em ...

-- Ravensfire

It's good to see you still have your sense of humor Ravesfire.