Razing: Opinion Poll & Discussion

[WhiteBandit]

Well isn't there an issue of jurisdiction here? Granted the SMC can do whatever he wants in regard to our military, but once the city falls, isn't it under the control of the Domestic Minister?

I don't really think any SMC should have a right to determine what is to be done with a city, unless (and I don't know if this happened) it was worked out with the Domestic Minister before hand. The Domestic Minister is the one who is now in control of the previous City Planner/Interior Expansion/Public Works/Etc. City placement and destruction should be under their authority by logic.

Perhaps I am wrong somewhere?

(I'm really not accusing ET or anyone else of wrong doing. However, perhaps this is an issue to take into future consideration. Who should get control over the cities and why?)

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
There's no reason to interrupt a turnchat with things that can be planned ahead many turns ahead.
We can plan ahead for every city in Germany, and in the worst case, if something unexpected pops up during the turnchat the attendants can override the decision if a certain majority for doing so is present.

hi ,

true all the way

BUT , where do we draw the line , what if a leader pop's up and several other unexpected things , ....

we could start to draw up plans that have to followed more the less , and with the planning ahead we could save considerable time

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The veto can also be given ahead. As for democratic decisions in a turnchat, it is a joke.

hi ,

, maybe we could ask that one or more judges are present during the chat

have a nice day

[Panzer32]

Originally posted by WhiteBandit
Well isn't there an issue of jurisdiction here? Granted the SMC can do whatever he wants in regard to our military, but once the city falls, isn't it under the control of the Domestic Minister?

I don't really think any SMC should have a right to determine what is to be done with a city, unless (and I don't know if this happened) it was worked out with the Domestic Minister before hand. The Domestic Minister is the one who is now in control of the previous City Planner/Interior Expansion/Public Works/Etc. City placement and destruction should be under their authority by logic.

Perhaps I am wrong somewhere?

The SMC needs to have control over a city, its build, or if it is razed or not to be able to continue with his war plans. Is it better for a city to be razed, or experience possible cultural reversion? The answer is in the military, whether it would be possible to retake the reverted city militarily. Thus the fate of newly captured cities should be under the command of the SMC.

[E_T]

In the past, a newly captured City is under the SMC's control, until any Resistance in that City had been eliminated. THen control of the City is then passed to the DM.

E_T

[DAVOUT]

Exact, and it made sense; under the new con, the Senate may confirm or set new rules. Until that, the former practice is legal.

[Donegeal]

Do not get politics in the way of war. As a nation, we have decided to go to war. Hamstringing our military with rules and bills (or even the "leave Berlin for the last") is a deteriment to our military. We go to war for political reason, not fight them with politial reasons. Look at Vietnam. A war for political reasons, and a war fought with political reasons. What happend? It didn't work. Now look at Desert Storm. Another political reason to go to war. Politics stayed out (mostly) and it was a tremendous victory, until politics interfeared at the end and it was stoped before it should've been. Keep politics OUT OF WAR and it will be successful. You start involving politics in war and it screws everything up.

This is not an RP opinion. This is a cold sad fact of war.

[zeit]

In the past, a newly captured City is under the SMC's control, until any Resistance in that City had been eliminated. THen control of the City is then passed to the DM.

That's true, but this rule seems archaic to me, the time and effort to quell a resistance, with our funds and army, is minimal, and the city keys should be returned to the DM once the SMC thinks enough forces have been sent to quell it's resistance (even before it actually ends). So, putting a city in the SMC's control, although it is quite possible and frankly quite trivial to send a few defensive units to maintain order is IMO wrong. The SMC's role is solely to maintain order in the occupied town. Disbanding a city is a major decision, not something to be commited by the SMC who controls the city for no more than 2-3 turns.

This problem should be solved by a bill, of course, to define restrictions to the SMC's authoritues when controling a resisting city.

[Kloreep]

All this argument, and it seems no one has thought to look in the ol' (or should I say ne' ) Con. Looks like I'm gonna spend a little discussing why the legality was questionable.

From Article I (Exec. Branch), emphasis mine:

4 The Domestic Minister
(a)Is responsible for managing all cities, their production queues, their citizens, and all of the workers and settlers.
(b)The Domestic Minister is ultimately responsible for choosing sites for new cities, disbanding cities, and making rushed production requests.

The SMC section in the same Article makes no mention of cities, only units. So, the SMC control of newly conquered cities is a, err... tradition. There is no legal basis for it.

Of course, IIRC, Spiffor wasn't at the chat. What happens then? 5A, from Article I (emphasis mine):

Should a Minister not be able to perform his duties, they may be performed by his Vice Minister, a Deputy Minister with specific authority, or the President, in that order. However, if a Minister has given specific written instructions, those instructions may not be ignored absent an incident as described in Art I, Sec 1D.

So far as I know, Spiffor did not appoint any RAs with specific authority, so it should have fell to Arnelos to determine Hamburg's fate. Unfortunately, we're not familiar with the NewCon yet (I know I'm not; I thought the SMC had conquered city privileges till I opened the NewCon several days ago), so that isn't how things worked.

Oh well. Too bad. E_T had obviously but some thought into it and knew what he was doing, and we probably would have abandoned it eventually anyway, and as aggie pointed out, starvation would have killed off most of its pop anyway.

Anyway... I've gone on far too long. Let me briefly get back to the thread: Razing bad bad. No kill civilians with bangy-bangys.

Thank you. And now back to your regularly scheduled program...

[Donegeal]

Screw this moral objectivity to disbanning cities. We didn't kill any additional German Citizens! We simply took the land and told them to go elsewhere. Now if you have an objective to taking land, then we had better stop this war now and gift almost all our cities back to the civs we took them from.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: jurisdiction

The SMC has jurisdiction because we don't "have" the city yet. We are presented with the option to raze it instead of taking it. Happy?

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by skywalker
Re: jurisdiction

The SMC has jurisdiction because we don't "have" the city yet. We are presented with the option to raze it instead of taking it. Happy?

Yes, razing is a legal blind spot. But IIRC, Hamburg was abandoned, not razed.

We probably should let this rest...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Shiber
There's gotta be a solution to this.
Maybe if we pass a bill that denies the government the power to abandon a city if the senate has decided in an official poll that that city may not be abandoned (a decision that applies only to the next turnchat and expires once the turnchat is over).

hi ,

, each situation is different , so is each city , would a "law" be a good solution , .......

we should maybe raze each city and put a new city in the terrain that becomes "vacant" , .......

what we do need is a solution !

have a nice day

[Kuciwalker]

We already do that.

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
We already do that.

hi ,

from the looks of it we are getting nowhere , .....

have a nice day

[Jonny]

I say no more razing unless it is absolutely neccesary, because it hurts our reputation too much. It also gives some other civ the chance to build a city in the same location.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Jonny
I say no more razing unless it is absolutely neccesary, because it hurts our reputation too much. It also gives some other civ the chance to build a city in the same location.

hi ,

not if we get there first , ......

but we shall need some settlers then , our settler stock happens to be a bit in the low numbers for right now , ....

have a nice day

[Kuciwalker]

WHY SHOULD WE CARE FOR OUR REPUTATION AMONGST THE INFIDELS! THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ENLIGHTENED TO THE GREAT BANANA! THEIR OPINIONS ARE WORTHLESS!

[lmtoops]

Even if we kept Hamburg, I think the end result would have been the same(but if we kept it would have taken a few years of corruption). I believe the main reason for objection is because 'it sounds bad in the Real World'. We are destroying peoples homes, their heritage, children!!!

Well hello!!! It's a game!! (sorry to break the news Role Players).

I think the arguments for disbanding are sound and correct.
1. There was nothing worth keeping in the city
2. We can quickly start a new city and build it up with happy workers. All the roads are still there, so this city will grow quickly.
3. In doing, we free up troops to fight the wars.

No brainer.

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
WHY SHOULD WE CARE FOR OUR REPUTATION AMONGST THE INFIDELS! THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ENLIGHTENED TO THE GREAT BANANA! THEIR OPINIONS ARE WORTHLESS!

hi ,



care to explain what you mean

have a nice day