Official: 3 Proposed Ammendments of the Constitution

Timeline · July 2, 2002, 22:16

NOTE: Section 3 (S3) has been declared invalid due to an error I made in the construction of the poll, I apologize for the inconvenience. The other issues (Section 1: Minister of Economy, and Section 2: Ambassadors) are not effected by this error.

Okay, this post actually deals with a number of issues, so pay close attention.

All actions require 2/3 to pass.
Poll Expires in 5 Days.

Section I: Minister of Economy

Minister of Economy:

The Minister of Economy ensures our nation's commercial market progresses smoothly and effeciently. This officer manages the budget of our nation and is the principle authority on all international trade involving currency and resources.

Trade Embargos must be approved by the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

Ammendmended Foreign Affairs Minister Section (to complete Minister of Economy Ammendment):

Minister of Foreign Affairs:

This minister is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances.

The exchange of all items, except Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is, however, strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consults with other ministers whos office may be affected by such trades.

This Minister is required to consult the Minister of Economy when Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources are involved in a trade.

Trade Embargos must be approved by the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

-Please vote weather the Ammendments suggested here in S1 should be implemented or not.

Section II: Ambassadors

Minister of Finance:

Ambassadors:

These government agents are appointed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, and assist him/her by reporting on specific details of individual nations. The Foreign Affairs office is required to have one Ambassador per Foreign Nation, with each Ambassador assigned to one specific foreign country.

Ambassadors make reports on the details of other countries, to be included in the Foreign Affairs Minister's report. Ambassadors also maintain constant contact with other nations, and search for possible trades.

-Again, please vote weather to add this section into the constitution or not.

NOTE: If you vote NO on any issue, please post why. This will help us make adjustments necessary to finalize details on our constitution.

Timeline · July 2, 2002, 22:41

Don't forget to say why you vote no!

If you don't tell us, nothing will ever get changed, and in turn, nothing will ever get done

.

MrWhereItsAt · July 2, 2002, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
Don't forget to say why you vote no!

If you don't tell us, nothing will ever get changed, and in turn, nothing will ever get done

.

Hehe. You asked for it, Timeline.

Before I vote (oh wait, the site won't let me

) -

Section 1:

So, the Foreign Minister is authorized only to exchange maps and workers without consulting relevant Ministers? What would the City Planner have to say about losing workers without a say? Why not just have a clause stating that ANY Minister must consult with the others where his decision would impact on their influences? As it is this amendment seems to be unnecessarily specific - no need to have such a detail for every Minister - just use your nous and consult each other where it is appropriate!

Section 2:

I think the Ambassadors may be needed by the Foreign Advisor at some point, but it shouldn't be in the Constitution. Any Minister or Prez should be able to delegate wherever the hell they feel it is necessary. Did Trip need an amendment to get me to send the savefile out to all the Ministers when he was bogged down with other things? Oh No! Scandal!

Section 3:

A majority passes. I still stand by this. I also think anyone should be able to propose war, but that it just needs approval form the Military Advisor. The President merely carries out the will of the people and the relevant departments, and if they can refuse to accept the proposal, that is too close to a Despotic decision for me.

Spiffor · July 3, 2002, 01:45

Since those are constitutianl amendments, do they need 67% "yes" for each suggestion to pass ?

Although you are right about changing the constitution where it is unclear, I fear a multiple-choice poll could be confusing in matters of amendments. However, thanks for clearing this up !

notyoueither · July 3, 2002, 01:54

Before I say no to all... where have these been discussed?

Foreign Minister... Make peace... military alliances... MPPs (oh Gods noooooo!) It sounds as if he or she can just do it if he or she so wishes. Not good. MPPs are suicide in many cases and I ask that any MPP be put to a poll.

As for war and peace, not many nations entrust the foreign office with deciding such things on their own. Yes, yes, they may consult the people. However, that is not guaranteed. I would be far happier with a War Cabinet made up of the Pres, SMC and Foreign Minister. Matters of war and peace are far too important to leave to the whims of any one person. The equivalent would be to grant Uber the power to declare war on his own say so. errrm... he can't do that can he?

Ambassadors... Good, except they should not be required. The Foreign Office should name them as needed. Do we really need any right now? Will we later? Maybe.

Declaration of War. No, no, no, no, nooooo. From where comes the idea that only ministers can propose this? Where is the single thread where this has been discussed? Where was it stated that that discussion would lead to this poll? A thousand times, NO!

notyoueither · July 3, 2002, 01:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Although you are right about changing the constitution where it is unclear, I fear a multiple-choice poll could be confusing in matters of amendments.

As my grandpappy used to say... No Sh*t!

Timeline · July 3, 2002, 07:38

Quote:

Section 1:

So, the Foreign Minister is authorized only to exchange maps and workers without consulting relevant Ministers? What would the City Planner have to say about losing workers without a say? Why not just have a clause stating that ANY Minister must consult with the others where his decision would impact on their influences? As it is this amendment seems to be unnecessarily specific - no need to have such a detail for every Minister - just use your nous and consult each other where it is appropriate!

LOL, not to be rude, but have you ever actually read the code of laws?

Nothing here is changed from before except rewording the Minister of Trade to Minister of Economy.

Even when trading maps, the FAM would want to talk to the SMC if he is around, because trading maps can effect national security. Workers yes, he would want to contact Eli. Tech trading, this effects many departments, not just R&D.

The reason for the special statement advising this Minister to contact others, if possible before making the trade, is because it is strongly recommended for this office, as you can began to see decisions made here greatly effect a large amount of other offices.

As for your provision for Ministers to consult each other, the "Ministerial Branch" section states: All Ministers are allowed to advise and consult with each other. They are also granted the right to petition for changes or actions from other Ministers that may be critical to the their department.

The people voted for a Minister of Economy, I am just doing my best to make something we can all agree on. Compare these ammendments with the original constitution, and you will see they are not much different.

Quote:

Section 2:

I think the Ambassadors may be needed by the Foreign Advisor at some point, but it shouldn't be in the Constitution. Any Minister or Prez should be able to delegate wherever the hell they feel it is necessary. Did Trip need an amendment to get me to send the savefile out to all the Ministers when he was bogged down with other things? Oh No! Scandal

Well, that is a distinct possibility and indeed something I suggested in another poll in the discussion thread for Ambassadors. The reason for the constitutional provision is that they would have "official" titles, and carry out pretty important responsibilities (namely checking for possible trades with other civs every turn). If Ambassadors are shot down here, I'll probably open up (sign) another discussion thread about constitutional provisions for deputies, assistants, helpers, etc. I think such a thing is necessary, because like I stated, I even took some criticism when signing up Jonny as my deputy.

Quote:

Since those are constitutianl amendments, do they need 67% "yes" for each suggestion to pass ?

Yes.

Quote:

I fear a multiple-choice poll could be confusing in matters of amendments.

Have you ever been up late when you get this "ingenius" idea and you can't sleep until you do it and prove yourself brilliant?

And then you wake up in the morning and look at what you've done, and realize it wasn't so smart

.

That's kinda what happened with this poll

.

I'm leaning towards reducing the "Declaration of War" poll to a study poll, because since there are 2 "yes" options, it is possible for one person to vote twice, an unfortunate mistake on my part. I have learned however that multiple chioce polls could be good for many yes or no votes.

MrWhereItsAt · July 3, 2002, 10:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
LOL, not to be rude, but have you ever actually read the code of laws?

No, actually. It was out of protest against having such a document.

I consider myself chastened and I guess since my ideas were defeated at the time, I have to now go and read it.

:

Quote:

The people voted for a Minister of Economy, I am just doing my best to make something we can all agree on. Compare these ammendments with the original constitution, and you will see they are not much different.

No harshness intended here or ever, Timeline. I merely do what I can to irk the Ministers at almost every conceivable turn

- consider me the opposition and just ignore my tone if it sounds too belligerent. I am deeply involved in the Civ2 game so I know what it's like.

Quote:

Have you ever been up late when you get this "ingenius" idea and you can't sleep until you do it and prove yourself brilliant?

And then you wake up in the morning and look at what you've done, and realize it wasn't so smart

.

That's kinda what happened with this poll

.

No worries - it looks like a good idea, but, from my viewpoint, all these things are common sense enough they do not need to be in any "Constitution" anyway.

Robber Baron · July 3, 2002, 10:38

I have to agree with Spiff: as currently constructed, this poll is confusing. Let's break this out and cover these one by one.
The question of declaring war in particular needs more air time.

Harovan · July 3, 2002, 11:00

The Minister of Economy was meant to replace the Ministers of Finance and Trade. I see nothing about this in the Amendment. What I see is, that we made one new office, and not that we close 2 for this.

Ambassadors may be useful later, when we have more contacts and the work for the Foreign Advisor grows. Right now, there's no reason. This should be decided, when the time is due. Let's not over-complicate the game.

War... that's a joke, right? Or is it a try to take the power away to the citizens? This is a game of Democracy, not Despotism.

No, no, no!

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 11:16

The Minister of Economy Amendment already exists.

Timeline · July 3, 2002, 11:42

But it has not been incorporated into the Code of Laws yet.

Quote:

The Minister of Economy was meant to replace the Ministers of Finance and Trade. I see nothing about this in the Amendment. What I see is, that we made one new office, and not that we close 2 for this.

Let me try to make this as clear as possible, so there is no more confusion.

If the ammendment is accepted, then This:

Quote:

Secton of Constitution
Minister of Trade:
The Minister of Trade is the principle authority on all international trade. He/she handles all trade involving the exchange of luxurious goods and resources, and has control over any times that gold may be involved.

The Trade Advisor is granted the power to make/accept Trade Embargos.

Minister of Finance:
The Financial Minister has the power to control the budget of our civ. That involves assigning income for science, trade and luxuries.

Will be replaced by This:

Quote:

Minister of Economy:

The Minister of Economy ensures our nation's commercial market progresses smoothly and effeciently. This officer manages the budget of our nation and is the principle authority on all international trade involving Gold, Strategic and Luxury resources.

Trade Embargos must be approved by the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

And this would reworded:

Quote:

Minister of Foreign Affairs:
This minister is the government’s chief advisor on foreign affairs and is responsible for carrying out foreign policy. He/She is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances. The exchange of all items, except Strategic, Luxury, or Gold resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consult the appropriate ministers when gifts or exchanges are involved.

This Minister is required to consult the Trade advisor when Gold, Luxury or Strategic resources are involved.

To This:

Quote:

Minister of Foreign Affairs:

This minister is given the power to enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, however should refrain from making commitments until approved by the people.

The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace, accept Mutual Protection Pacts, offer Right of Passage Agreements, and forge Military Alliances.

The exchange of all items, except Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources falls on the broad shoulders of the Foreign Affairs Minister. It is, however, strongly recommended that the Foreign Affairs Minister consults with other ministers whos office may be affected by such trades.

This Minister is required to consult the Minister of Economy when Luxury, Gold, or Strategic resources are involved in a trade.

Trade Embargos must be approved by the Minister of Economy and Foreign Affairs Minister before they may be enforced.

Hope this helps!

Timeline · July 3, 2002, 11:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
War... that's a joke, right? Or is it a try to take the power away to the citizens? This is a game of Democracy, not Despotism.

Yes, it was a joke

Timeline · July 3, 2002, 11:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Ambassadors may be useful later, when we have more contacts and the work for the Foreign Advisor grows. Right now, there's no reason. This should be decided, when the time is due. Let's not over-complicate the game.

I agree. And now I think about it more, I am inclined to agree with Mr. WIA that this provision is unneeded. It should perhaps be up to each FAM to decide how to run his office, and indeed up to all Ministers to decide.

I think any Minister or Executive Officer should be able to enlist as many Deputies, Ambassadors, Generals, Secretaries etc, etc, as he/she wants.

Question is, do they have that right now? There is nothing in the CoL that says they can't, but people still seem opposed to the idea.

As far as these ones not having power, dont believe that, because they may in some cases. For example, they would be the one to take over should the Minister not be able to make it.

So how should this be dealt with? Should the people elect the assistants?

Should Ministers be entrusted to pick their helpers and backups, but have hell to pay if they do a bad job?

Torkkeli · July 3, 2002, 12:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline

Section II: Ambassadors

Minister of Finance:

Ambassadors:

These government agents are appointed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, and assist him/her by reporting on specific details of individual nations. The Foreign Affairs office is required to have one Ambassador per Foreign Nation, with each Ambassador assigned to one specific foreign country.

I'll be happy with this if the following changes are made:

These government agents are appointed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, and assist him/her by reporting on specific details of individual nations.
The Foreign Affairs office can have one Ambassador per Foreign Nation, with one Ambassador assigned to one or more foreign countries. One Foreign Nation has only one Ambassador.

This is to say that they are not mandatory, and one Ambassador can handle multiple nations.

Why?

Because I think that when one Ambassador handles one or more Embassies at a time he/she can produce information quickly to us, as he/she can also use the info of the other nations to his advantage and tell us something about the relations of the other nations.
(yeah thats not very clearly said but I hope you get what I mean...

)

Also the reports would all look the same from the same Ambassador.

Timeline · July 3, 2002, 12:07

Good Points....

What do you think about my previous statement?:

I think any Minister or Executive Officer should be able to enlist as many Deputies, Ambassadors, Generals, Secretaries etc, etc, as he/she wants. And each Minister is allowed to construct their office how they see fit.

The only problem I see with this: If Ministers are allowed to appoint anyone into their office, it could give rise to the ugly head of party politics, I fear. This is more how it works in contemporary US Democracy.

Proserpine · July 3, 2002, 12:13

I am in favour of the MoE idea, however wrt Ambassadors, I feel strongly that in a Democracy game these should be elected by the citizens, not appointed. Similarly, if Ministers are to have Deputies, in my view these should also be elected (and City/Province Governors and their Deputies (and so on).

UnOrthOdOx · July 3, 2002, 12:13

People may need assitants down the road. I don't see why the elected official couldn't appoint these, but there definately needs to be some formal announcement so everyone knows who is such and aid. We can't just have people showing up and saying, oh yeah, (insert minister here) appointed me to take his place this turn.

The need for them, and what they are entitled to do, should be up to the minister.

As discussed, I understood that Ambassador idea was mostly going to be aiding in giving out the reports, to keep the people informed, not turn-chat stuff, but the minister should be in charge of what his aid can do, but make sure everyone else knows that as well.

How about an ammendment something like this:

All Ministers have the right to appoint aids to assist them as needed.

The Minister will decide on which duties the aids will oversee in their place.

The aids should be named in public with a list of their duties for (insert time frame here) before they are able to conduct any acts pertaining to the office. Any act made by such aids is to be considered an act of the Minister which appointed them.

(someone can probably make this sound more 'official')

Torkkeli · July 3, 2002, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline
Good Points....

What do you think about my previous statement?:

I think any Minister or Executive Officer should be able to enlist as many Deputies, Ambassadors, Generals, Secretaries etc, etc, as he/she wants. And each Minister is allowed to construct their office how they see fit.

The only problem I see with this: If Ministers are allowed to appoint anyone into their office, it could give rise to the ugly head of party politics, I fear. This is more how it works in contemporary US Democracy.

Yes this could lead to very big politics and then things can get ugly...

But to counter those formations in the offices there is always the fear of beeing kicked out. As we have a lot of ppl here one can easily get enough names to throw someone out of the office. The number of votes against should be something around 3/5 votes to make it a bit easier and to counter parties forming coalitions to support someone.

Also on a side note here: It would be interesting to see how many 'parties' we have now and how many members each has.

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 12:31

I think this poll needs to be declared invalid. No insult to you, Timeline, but it is sort of confusing if you don't read the fine print, and Amendments to the Constitution should have only single-choice polls, not multi-choice.

Aggie · July 3, 2002, 12:35

First I thank you for all the organizing you have done. However my i suggest that this should have been three threads in the name of simplicity. I also think that all amendments should be in a yea/nea abstain format(I assume the abstains won't influence the 66%, ie you need 66% of the yea/nea vote). Perhaps this is a good amendment. Now to the issues at hand
1) NO, Now my reasoning, Ministers have domain of their areas, however things such as trade embargo do also effect foriegn etc, so maybe the president should have the final say on something like this instead of a minister. The logic is that an embargo effects foreign/economy/war and thus is larger than any minister. An example, if we could trade luxeries with somebody(say france) and we also wanted to go to war an embargo would help us since it would prevent us from making any trades we would have to break later to go to war, however it would also effect the happiness in the cities negatively so that would also have to be dealt with. So there are conflicts between ministers, thus it should be the presidents decision.
2) I voted no because the foreign minister should be able to handle this on his own.
3) No because nowhere do i see who can propose it. A note here what are the current rules for declaring war as of now i don't see them in our const. If they aren't formalized now i propose a thread to that, since it will come up soon.
aggie

ThePlagueRat · July 3, 2002, 13:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
First I thank you for all the organizing you have done. However my i suggest that this should have been three threads in the name of simplicity. I also think that all amendments should be in a yea/nea abstain format(I assume the abstains won't influence the 66%, ie you need 66% of the yea/nea vote).

I concur, so should I vote at all here?
Maybe abstrain on s3, by checking maybe just one?
Hmmm... I like yah/nay/dunno options for official polls.
Or it gets too complex...

Kloreep · July 3, 2002, 14:24

I would vote for Torkkeli's version of the ambassador amendment, but i vote nay to the proposed version of the amendment. I don't think making any of it mandatory is a good idea.

Robber Baron · July 3, 2002, 14:40

I say yes to ambassadors (and generals), to be appointed by their respective ministers, as said ministers wish to designate.
Only groundrule would be that the minister must inform citizens of appointments (and arrangements for temporary proxy playing).
The appropriate safeguard against deputies running amok would be impeachment of (ir)responsible ministers.

Spiffor · July 3, 2002, 20:22

Timeline, I have another question :
Is the MoE amendment intended to replace the amendment I wrote, or is your text intended to be added in the MoE chapter (which has been added in the constitution once MoE poll has ended) ?

If your amendment is intended to replace mine, I'd have to disagree with you, because my work was much more precise on the Minister of Economy funtion. If it's intended to add to the constitution, your amendment is welcome because it explains the spirit of the Ministry of Economy.

Timeline · July 3, 2002, 22:10

You already wrote the ammendment to the constitution? Where is it? I don't ever recall seeing a poll.

Would you be so kind as to supply me with a link?

Spiffor · July 4, 2002, 00:19

The poll and amendment suggestion can be seen here.

The first post is the amendment suggestion, and it has been stated several times that it was an amendment proposal (so that voters didn't get confused because of the lack of "amendment" within the title).

Trip announced this officially here, but couldn't update the constitution immediately due to technical difficulties.

With this info in mind, do you think your amendment should add to mine, or replace it ?

notyoueither · July 4, 2002, 01:02

May I also suggest that any official poll with multiple yes options and only 1 no, or the reverse... is biased/rigged/invalid?

It should be yes/no. 2 options (3 with abstain).

What do you think?

Timeline · July 4, 2002, 07:22

It is possible to have a fair, unbiased poll with more than 1 yes/no option, just not with multiple chioce lol

.

Notice: The first option in the poll only has 2 options. It askes: "Should we adopt the the Minister of Economy Ammendment AS IS" with yes or no options. This poll is unbiased (it is! REALLY!) and there is no need to, sigh, declare it invalid. It would only take up more time.

Yes, I admit, I messed up with the other choices, but it would only slow us down to have a repoll on option 1, and I know we would get the same results.

Besides, the people have already voted for this ammendment, it is basically just combining the Trade and Finance positions, and rewording reference to them in other sections to Minister of Economy. It is a simple and basic ammendment, and simple is many times best.

Timeline · July 4, 2002, 07:56

Well spiff, all I can say is that what you wrote is basically the same as what I have except to one difference, which I will get to in a sec.

The problem with the "ammendment" you proposed in my opinion, is that it did not seem to be in constitutional form, but more in principle form.

Quote:

Minister of Economy:

Duties:
- To adjust the sliders in agreement with the People or the President. These two get actually to decide who should get what budget. The minister of economy should only give documented advice.
- To check if cities produce a good amount of money, and petition the city planner to build marketplaces and banks where it has to be. The minister of economy has no direct power on cities however.
- To check if resources and luxuries are well dispatched in the empire, and to petition the minister of public works if different. The minister of economy has no direct power on workers.
- To establish trades with the AI involving resources, luxuries or gold.
- To haggle gold amounts in a trade decided by the foreign minister. The minister of economy has to agree with trades involving goods among other things (example, he has to agree to a suggested "Fur for IronWorking" trade). The minister of economy has no direct power on trades involving gold among other things, but no trade goods.

The ability to call for trade embargoes goes to the foreign advisor.

This is exactly what should be added to the constitution according to you, right?

Unfortunately, this is not even in constitutional format. My suggestion is merely adding into the constitution, with the words in my first post, what your poll has already showed the people want.

Please understand, I was under the impression that you were proposing an ammendment be made, but I did not think you wanted the exact text of your post copied into the constitution. I thought you wanted the list of principles you mentioned incorporated into the constitution, which is what I did above, except for one difference, which again, was done by mistake on my part (sigh). I guess we gotta talk about that now.....

In the ammendment above I gave the right for anyone to propose a trade embargo, but the Minister of Economy and FAM must first approve it.

Like I said this is not an attempt to undermine you, it was done totally by mistake.

But the more I think about, the more sense it does make. I mean, a trade embargo could never be carried out without the help of Government Economy Officials. And, should such a strong tool be able to be used by any one man? (What if the UFC gets into office and embargos all other nations, forcing us into war?

)

So, yes, this would overwrite what you wrote in your post, but it has the same guidelines, just stated in a more constitutional form. Also, this ammendment changes references in other areas of the constitution to the new Minister of Economy position, and, in my opinion, would serve us better as a constitutional document.