Amendment VII Ratification

[UnOrthOdOx]

Is the following amendment ready to be added to the CoL


Amendment VII:

The Minister of Economy is hereby granted the authority to upgrade military units. This process should be done while taking the counsel of the Supreme Military Commander into account in determining which units have a higher priority, but the Minister of Economy will distribute the actual funds

The Minister of Economy is hereby granted the authority to rush buildings, production and improvements using cash. The City Planner should advise the Minister of Economy as to which cities would benefit most from the rushing of buildings, production, or improvements, but the Minister of Economy will distribute the actual funds.



Options:

Yes
No
Abstain

For the purposes of this poll, abstain votes will be counted as no in the final % needed for passing

Poll will close in 5 days.

edit: Discussion per NYE request:[*] Amendment discussion: Upgrading and Rushing

[notyoueither]

It would be helpful if you could provide links to threads where this amendment has been discussed so that people can easily find the relevant arguments for and against.

[Aggie]

In its current form I'm afraid I'll have to vote no. It seems that wording along these lines would be better. In front of the first "After the SMc has requested upgrades" and in the second paragraph "After the cp has requested rushing". As it now worded the MOE can upgrade units even if the SMC didn't want them upgrade and same with buildings for the cp. IF the cp or the SMC doesn't want something rushed or upgraded then the MOE should NOT have the authority to do so.
Aggie

[Reddawg]

I suppose some people may be looking at me on this issue; here is what I think. It's true that a tyrannical MoE could abuse this power, effectively disrupting all plans of the SMC, or waylaying the City Planner's efforts. But why should we suppose any MoE would do this?

If you feel that this still allows the MoE to have too much control, here is what I suggest: that the MoE have veto power over any upgrades/rushes, but that he not be able to upgrade/rush anything unwanted. This effectively gives him the power to preserve the economy from damage by too many upgrades/rushes. This power of veto is not currently provided for in the CoL and if it is added, should be taken seriously.

[UnOrthOdOx]

The reasoning behind this was that someone, in the orders thread, MUST have final say. It is to prevent confusion, nothing more. How many times in a chat are we faced with many different requests for upgrade. This provides WHERE to look for final say.

Wish this would have been brought up in the two weeks of discussion, but we can't all be on top of every thread. I don't think I have gone to check the orders in quite some time.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Reddawg
I suppose some people may be looking at me on this issue; here is what I think. It's true that a tyrannical MoE could abuse this power, effectively disrupting all plans of the SMC, or waylaying the City Planner's efforts. But why should we suppose any MoE would do this?

"It is vain to say that enlightened statesmen will always be able to adjust their interests. For enlightened men will not always be at the helm."
- James Madison, So-called "Father of the U.S. Constitution" and 4th President of the United States

Notice how he refers to the action of assuming future holders of an office will be enlightened as vain, not simply foolish. Bismark of Germany is a good example... a man who designed the German Chancellorship with himself in mind. He was a very good statesman and upheld the office well... but because his successors in the role were not quite as talented as Bismark, the responsibilities of the office became a liability rather than a strength to Germany, ultimately leading (in the opinion of many a historian) to the unfortunate callusion of factors which permitted a German miscalculation to lead to the First World War...

Numerous other examples exist in history where talented statesmen created an office with themselves in mind, which almost guarantees that if anyone other than them holds the office, a disaster becomes more likely.

Where possible, this is something to be avoided. Tailor offices with the worst of possible office-holders in mind, not the best.

[Reddawg]

Bravo, Arnelos.

then again, this is C3DG... we'll just impeach someone that does an awful job. but if Unortho thinks this is the best way to solve confusion in the orders, ill vote for it.

[DAVOUT]

The decision process does not appear satisfactory. The authorithy must be given to the Minister in charge who is asking for funds, and if a choice has to be made between several requests, it becomes a policy decision which should have been made before the action, through the definition of priorities, and in case of emergency by the prez.

This of course does not reduce the importance and power of the MoE, whose main duties are to make sure that no spending are made without proper authority, and that no commitments are made which could not be held.

[joncnunn]

Voting no.

Rushing military units should require the consent of both the Minister of Economy and Supreme Military Commander.

Rushing buildings, production and improvements via cash should require the consent of both the Minster of Economy and City Planner.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I am, as the poll's creator, declaring this poll null and void. It is now a poll for information purposes, and nothing else.

I will state this here:

I am doing so as a work around to the repoll clause in the CoL:

Repolling:
If someone wants to conduct a repoll, then it must be created at least 3 weeks following the initial poll. If a repoll is created before 3 weeks has passed, then that poll is immediately invalid. If a poll is an alternative poll, offering alternatives to decisions made in a previous poll, then it also must be conducted at least 3 weeks following the first poll, or be immediately deemed invalid. Any poll that's general purpose is the same or similar as another poll will be considered a repoll.

This will, in my opinion, allow us to fix the issues with this amendment, and to poll on the fixed version before the neccessary 3 weeks between official polls. Should someone disagree with this, aproach the court to declare the second poll invalid. I am prepared to defend my decision in court.


Now, as an information gathering thread:

The issue most of you seem to have with the amendment as written is: This gives the Minister of Economy too much power.

I ask. How is this any more power than the City Planner has?

Let me give examples.

Aggie needs units. He aproaches GodKing and requests 8 cities begin production on Knights. GodKing is under NO OFFICIAL obligation to follow Aggies suggestion, but DECIDES 3 of the cities will change to Knights. Similarly, if GodKing wishes to PRODUCE a Knight, he does not need to ask Aggie's permission to do so.

With this amendment, it is the same:

Aggie wants 10 chariots upgraded. He goes and asks Reddawg to do it. Reddawg is under NO OFFICIAL obligation to do so, but DECIDES 3 will be upgraded.


There is a check and balance system in place here. The MoE CANNOT decide what is being BUILT in a city. He can't say: Switch to a courthouse and rush it. And the City Planner cannot say Rush my Temple. They must work together, and pose suggestions.


So, let's look at this from another angle.

The problem: No One is currently in charge of Upgrades or Rushes.

The way I see it there are two options to solve this problem.

First: The Minister of Economy handles the money, like in the amendment above.

Second: The Minister of Economy distributes Cash to the respective ministers to use as they please.

In this it would be: Reddawg: "OK Aggie, you get 200 gold this turn, GodKing, you get 300." Aggie and GodKing are then free to spend it how THEY please. In this case the ministers would request a CASH amount rather than a specific rush/unit. The two ministers could even trade cash. Godking only needs 96 to rush a Temple, he COULD give the rest to Aggie...


I am more than open to hear any other ways of solving this. Keep one thing in mind, however. SOMEONE must have the FINAL say.

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm in favor of appropiation of funds as well.

voting no for now.

[joncnunn]

Good point on the buildings and city improvements. I withdraw that portion in light of the fact that any rushes would be of something the City Planner wanted built next at the city anyway.

It's not so clear cut that the Supreme Military Commander will always want units upgraded as fast as possible.

The primary reason being that upgraded units lose their combat edges and revert back to vetran if they were orginally built in a barracks, conscript status if they were conscripted, and regular otherwise.

A secondary reason would be in support of having a golden age via winning with the unique unit.

And thirdy, upgrading a unit consumes the remainier of the turn which can interfere with SMC orders.

[Reddawg]

Unortho, your explanation puts me 100% behind your proposition; I'm all for it, it seems absolutely necessary now.

[GhengisFarb™]

Why are we ammending a constitution that is being scrapped in less than a month anyway?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Because there is no guarantee that the first draft the Con Con comes up with will pass, and until it does, we are wroking with this cumbersome document and need to fix it up where it needs.

[GhengisFarb™]

I think that REPOLL clause needs to be fixed, that's a pain in the neck and results in potential 3 week gaps between gameplay.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Well...we could amend it...

I am really trying to only patch the gaping holes in the CoL, not fix all the minor leaks. Rushing and Upgrading has resulted in much confusion this term, best to fix it. The Repolling...well, it is just an annoyance at this point.

[Reddawg]

Three weeks seems to have been a completely arbitrary time limit to put on it; and in a game where 30 turns could easily be played in that time, three weeks it obviously to much. I know we can't do anything about it now, or that it's a side issue... but if the Con Con wants to put in a clause about re-polling, I hope they make it much more sensible.

[notyoueither]

3 weeks might seem too little if it is a hotly contested issue.

The intent of three weeks is to make amendment by bludgeoning impractical. It serves as a cooling off period so that those in minority positions do not become beseiged by mobs. It serves to reduce the amount of squabbling when one side, or person, does not get what he/she/they desired from the first poll.

At this time, I see no problem with what UnOrthO has done. He is halting the process so that legitimate concerns may be addressed. Those concerns may well have been missed due to the lack of a clearly marked pre-amendment discussion thread. That in itself lends some weight to his decision.

/Edit. Ignore that last bit.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by notyoueither
3 weeks might seem too little if it is a hotly contested issue.

But we have to wait three weeks before we can have a runoff between the two most popular choices for the Palace/Forbidden Palace location.

We can NEVER have a runoff for a GL unless we want to pause the game for a month. So, if there were 15 choices with one getting 12 votes, another getting 13 and 8 choices getting 7 vote each, the 13 in the majority get their wishes done and the other 68 are the minority.

So the 3 week clause forces the Democracy game to be anti-Democracy and simply a Tyrant game.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
So the 3 week clause forces the Democracy game to be anti-Democracy and simply a Tyrant game.

This is a rather amusing line when you read it and think of how worried James Madison and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution were about what they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority" found in true democracies .

I agree with GF and Unortho on this all the way. The 3-week wait is effectively several centuries on our current time-table... a wee bit ludicrous (even when 3 weeks will likely be well more than a decade or perhaps 2 in the 20th century, it's still ludicrous). The game simply moves too fast... I don't think the same 5 days to hold a poll is unreasonable for the period between polls.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

But we have to wait three weeks before we can have a runoff between the two most popular choices for the Palace/Forbidden Palace location.

We can NEVER have a runoff for a GL unless we want to pause the game for a month. So, if there were 15 choices with one getting 12 votes, another getting 13 and 8 choices getting 7 vote each, the 13 in the majority get their wishes done and the other 68 are the minority.

So the 3 week clause forces the Democracy game to be anti-Democracy and simply a Tyrant game.

I don't believe that run offs between two choices from a group would be considered a repoll. It might depend on who you ask.

The intent of the repolling clause is to prevent re-asking the same question, or slightly different, to get a different result.

Asking for the people to choose between 2 popular choices from the same group in a grouping poll does not seem to be re-asking a question, to me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arnelos


This is a rather amusing line when you read it and think of how worried James Madison and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution were about what they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority" found in true democracies .

I agree with GF and Unortho on this all the way. The 3-week wait is effectively several centuries on our current time-table... a wee bit ludicrous (even when 3 weeks will likely be well more than a decade or perhaps 2 in the 20th century, it's still ludicrous). The game simply moves too fast... I don't think the same 5 days to hold a poll is unreasonable for the period between polls.

3 weeks plus the 3 to 5 days for the poll is only one term of our government. Coincidence? Maybe not.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Arnelos
This is a rather amusing line when you read it and think of how worried James Madison and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution were about what they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority" found in true democracies .

HeHeHe. I wondered if you would catch that. I just got through watching the "Founding Brothers" miniseries (again) and have been in a Early Americana mode all week..........

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't believe that run offs between two choices from a group would be considered a repoll. It might depend on who you ask.

The intent of the repolling clause is to prevent re-asking the same question, or slightly different, to get a different result.

Asking for the people to choose between 2 popular choices from the same group in a grouping poll does not seem to be re-asking a question, to me.

That's your opinion, unfortunately the constitution refers to any poll with similiar choices asking a similiar question and that effectively covers repolls.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
That's your opinion, unfortunately the constitution refers to any poll with similiar choices asking a similiar question and that effectively covers repolls.

I invite you, or anyone else to test the validity of my opinion in this matter.

[UnOrthOdOx]

The Palace polls PURPOSE was to find a few candidates for a runoff. It has served its purpose, the new polls PURPOSE would be to find a FINAL set from the public. I would make that poll if I were you, I will defend it in court if anyone cares to contest it.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
The Palace polls PURPOSE was to find a few candidates for a runoff. It has served its purpose, the new polls PURPOSE would be to find a FINAL set from the public. I would make that poll if I were you, I will defend it in court if anyone cares to contest it.

But one set will lose and someone who supports the losing set will challenge the validity then will have to wait another 3 weeks.

Course, I have thought about making an UNOFFICIAL poll and letting the CP do what they will with the results...........

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

But one set will lose and someone who supports the losing set will challenge the validity then will have to wait another 3 weeks.

Course, I have thought about making an UNOFFICIAL poll and letting the CP do what they will with the results...........

This, of course, would make "official" polls sort of pointless except when they take on the force of law (such as when war needs to be declared). Of course, that's already halfway to being true anyhow .

(gotta a funny feeling the Con Con is thinking of changing this though, given their hinting at giving the Senate more authority to pass "laws")

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

But one set will lose and someone who supports the losing set will challenge the validity then will have to wait another 3 weeks.

Course, I have thought about making an UNOFFICIAL poll and letting the CP do what they will with the results...........

Not quite. The poll WILL BE official, the only way to mke it not so would be to have either the poll starter state it so, based on a precedence in whatever case # was filed against Uber, or for the Court to RULE it so. They can TRY to make it invalid, but I am fairly confident I can defend against such an argument.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Not quite. The poll WILL BE official, the only way to mke it not so would be to have either the poll starter state it so,

That's exactly what I was planning on. I was going to state in the subject and the first post that in accordance with the Constitution it was an "Unofficial Poll and therefore valid to be officially acted on."

Don't you just love our constitution.