Provincial Governors

Jon Shafer · June 10, 2002, 20:21

Okay, in the chatroom people have suggested we have governors, which advise the minsters on what should be done with individual cities and provinces. Provinces would be created depending on geographic region by either vote or at the President's discretion.

This poll will close on Saturday, June 15th.

Kuciwalker · June 10, 2002, 20:39

This was originally in the CivFanatics Demo Game, and while generally any and all things related to CivFanatics are by definition evil, in this case I think it's a good idea.

Space05us · June 10, 2002, 22:04

The people are the ones who look at the maps and make suggestions to the president and other ministers. To make another office that would, in effect, be the people would be a waste of time and space.

Jethro83 · June 10, 2002, 22:21

I agree with Space05us. It would definitely be a waste of time.

Timeline · June 10, 2002, 22:30

I must agree for now it would be pointless. But maybe down the road we could institute such a thing, when we have more cities...

civman2000 · June 10, 2002, 22:46

BIg waste. If necessary later we can add them, just like we can add any new posts, but for now they'll just clutter stuff up...

It looks like everyone who's voted no has explained, whereas just one of the 7 who voted yes have given any reasons

Chubbs · June 10, 2002, 23:17

I agree, if we do it now it would only waste time, but i do thik we should implement it later when we have many cities.

Jon Shafer · June 10, 2002, 23:25

The nay-sayers are catching up.

I don't really mind either way to be honest.

Gramphos · June 11, 2002, 07:04

Yes, but not before we have at least 6 cities, and only as a test first

What option should I vote for then?

disorganizer · June 11, 2002, 07:07

Yes, because many things can be done by governors (micro-management of citizens, organizational things like maps etc.)

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 07:10

I voted no. If it turns out that they are needed later than they can be added.

Gramphos · June 11, 2002, 07:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I voted no. If it turns out that they are needed later than they can be added.

Then I vote no as well. Because I don't want them in from start.

Jon Shafer · June 11, 2002, 09:04

Well now, I've never seen quite a comeback!

Though I must say, it can be attributed to the fact that the people who supported it in the chatroom voted first when I told them about it, and everyone else voted later once they saw it.

disorganizer · June 11, 2002, 09:55

What about having one of the ministers or the vice president govern the first province? then we would have other governors later on, as provinces are added (no provinces, no governors) [i know this from somewhere, but somehow i cant remember].
changing the rules later on will surely confuse things.

civman2000 · June 11, 2002, 09:58

uhh...i think the city planner's job essentially makes him governor of everything...

JSeeds · June 11, 2002, 15:04

No.
Perhaps this should be considered at a later date when provincial governors would be needed.

Kuciwalker · June 11, 2002, 15:48

Yes, it was intended to be at a later date. A governor would give reports on just a certain region.

Spiffor · June 11, 2002, 17:53

Voted yes, because it will help the ministers when there will be many many cities to manage. I think we should create them from the beginning of the game, to see how it works. They don't have to be in the turn chat, they can PM ministers or prez during the wainting bw turns

Kuciwalker · June 11, 2002, 17:54

Everyone vote yes.

We need to catch up.

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 17:56

Everyone vote no

We need to stay ahead

Kuciwalker · June 11, 2002, 17:58

BAD MORAL HAZARD! (sends moral hazard to sit in the corner)

punkbass2000 · June 11, 2002, 21:05

Is it ethical to agree with Moral Hazard?

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 21:31

Moral Hazard is an economics term actual so unless your a comunist yes

Example:
If someone is insured against say unemployment they are more likely to do things which will allow them to be unemployed. Or say if you screw up, your parents will bail you out your more likely to screw up.

Inverse Icarus · June 11, 2002, 21:34

BIG FAT

ANOTHER FOR GOOD MEASURE

punkbass2000 · June 11, 2002, 21:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Moral Hazard is an economics term actual so unless your a comunist yes

What if I'm a socialist/marxist?

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 22:50

I dislike labels do you agree that the follow example is correct? The real question I think, is not whether it is correct but how much effect it has.

For Example:
Having car insurance isn't going to make you crash your car.

notyoueither · June 12, 2002, 03:41

We don't need no stinckin' gov'nors. All power to the Soviets!

Eli · June 12, 2002, 06:42

No. At least not until the modern era.

If we have tens of cities then governors will be useful, but in early and mid-game it'll only complicate the game.

Alex · June 14, 2002, 15:48

No. Useless. Maybe later.

Jon Shafer · June 14, 2002, 23:38

*Tries to think of why so many people support governors.*

Remember people, things we decide now, will be implimented now. Do you really want governors running around when we only have 3 cities, but 4 times the number of Senators to run them?