Constitution Committee: Discussion thread - Page 2

civman2000 · May 31, 2002, 08:06

I think somewhere in the civfanatics constitution they're banned, but skywalker didn't copy that part.

BURN IT!!!!!!!!!

-Jrabbit · May 31, 2002, 08:16

Can't you just feel the fun being sucked out of this game?

Space05us · May 31, 2002, 12:20

A constitution wouldn't be worth the trouble of creating when we all know that if we, for the most part, agree on one thing than it's official. Someone should start a thread posting all of the "rules" so far, but don't call it a constitution when it isn't nearly that binding(and shouldn't be)

as for Skywalker's

BURN IT

Any true Communist would agree

p.s. Do a great service to your country, join the AAAC!

Kuciwalker · May 31, 2002, 16:10

The deputies and sub-heads are appointed, and are not *reqired* positions. They exist for the sole purpose of making it easier for the heads to concentrate on large issues instead of all of the little details. The sub-heads are more clerks than policy-makers.

Space05us · May 31, 2002, 16:58

The game isn't that complex.

civman2000 · May 31, 2002, 17:20

The newest member of the AAAC already understands the best arguments against a constitution

! I have no more to say other than that that rules thread does exist, MWIA posted it (titled something like "all important decisions to date")

Xenozod · May 31, 2002, 19:35

I agree with the above AAAC members. We don't need a constitution if we know what we can and cannot do. Why make the game more complicated for no good reason?