Official: Military Commanders Amendment

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 10:52

If you agree that this should become a part of the Constitution, please vote yes.

The War Minister may, when he feels it necessary, appoint "Military Commanders" or "Generals", the name being, for the moment, unimportant, who will focus on a specific region or specialty and advise him on matters pertaining to that region or specialty. The Military Commander may post polls in the War Minister's name. There may be any number of Military Commanders. The Military Commander post(s) will each cease to exist as they become unnecessary. A Military Commander may be removed from his post under three circumstances: the President feels it necessary, due to poor conduct or any other reason, the War Minister feels it is necessary, due to poor conduct or any other reason, or a Citizen has posted a poll in which there has been a two-thirds majority vote for the removal of the Military Commander. This Amendment will not take affect until it has been ratified by a two-thirds majority vote.

OK, there are several reasons this is a good amendment:

1) It can make life easier for the War Minister
2) It can give people experiance in government
3) It can actually help us focus on important things when needed

Please note that this is not a permanent post, nor even a single post. This is simply the ability of the War Minister to get an aide (unless it's Vlad's aide

).

Harovan · July 3, 2002, 11:06

No, and I don't see how this poll is official.

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 11:14

It is official because it follows the poll guidelines that have been established for some time.

Pevonian · July 3, 2002, 12:26

Is this in any way related too, based upon or ripped off from the below?

Posted: 02-07-2002 20:54

"...but we'd need Marshals for Divisions of the army if it got large. I'm used to having small forces, and it could get tedious submitting orders for the entire force!"

It does sound remarkably similar...

:0

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 12:28

I've been plugging this idea since the start of the game.

Pevonian · July 3, 2002, 12:32

Great minds think alike eh? It was your idea first then please forgive me, but you posting it the day after I posted my vauger, sketchy idea up was a bit suspicious. Otherwise, I totally support this move and have voted Yes.

:0

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 12:33

Thank you for your vote. We will need this later.

Pevonian · July 3, 2002, 12:36

Yes we will, though we'll have to make sure they are obiedient to the orders of the hierarchy (I'd expect the President to follow their orders by the book, for added realism) it would be a bad situation if a General refused to move his troops onto an assualt.

:0

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 12:37

The General doesn't have total control. He tells the War Minister what the polls say, and the War Minister tells the President.

ThePlagueRat · July 3, 2002, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
It is official because it follows the poll guidelines that have been established for some time.

And these guidelines, were they established democratic and also meditated upon? Or just by coincidence?

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 13:41

The Guidelines were voted on.

UnOrthOdOx · July 3, 2002, 13:43

We just need a general amendmant that allows for ALL Ministers to appoint aids AS THEY SEE FIT. Why break it down into seperate divisions. Give the power over this to the Ministers, and make some guidelines for how to inform/make official/whatever these aids to the general public.

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 13:45

Only some Ministers really need aides. We don't want too much bureaucracy, though we will need some.

UnOrthOdOx · July 3, 2002, 13:50

Why not leave that up to the Minister? If real life steps in, someone may need an aid for a time when otherwise they wouldn't.

I am in no position to say who needs an aid and who does not, I am not the Minister, I am not doing their work. Let THEM decide what THEY need, do not place restrictions in the 'law'.

Kuciwalker · July 3, 2002, 13:54

Well, we don't want the "aides" completely taking over the ministers' jobs. There's a reason why we elect the Ministers, as opposed to having the President appoint them.

UnOrthOdOx · July 3, 2002, 14:16

So, instead, we make up a seperate 'aide' ammendmant for all the ministers who think they need one?

I am just saying, who are we to tell someone that THEY do not require any help, but this guy over here does? Things happen, it is a long term, someone may be shorter on time by the end of it.

If you fear Aides "taking over" then we could put restrictions into the ammendment, say they can only poll, post info, whatnot, but cannot conduct any 'official' game moves? Or just say that they act as the Minister decides, if that means full authority, so beit, if someone don't like the aids decision, while acting officially for the Minister, impeach the Minister.

I am not saying what needs to be written, but why make many ammendments when we can have one cover all Ministers? Put restrictions if people feel its needed, but let the poeple doing the jobs decide whether they need help.

Robber Baron · July 3, 2002, 14:47

Unortho's suggestions make sense to me. As I've posted elsewhere, the appropriate safeguard against military commanders running amok is impeachment of the War Minister (for failing to keep his generals in line).
One proviso, I guess: removal of a War Minister should automatically (and constitutionally) dismantle his command staff.

Fatwreck · July 3, 2002, 17:23

U forgot the banana vote...

Panag · July 3, 2002, 18:25

hi ,

the farther the game goes , the more aides shall be needed , we might aswell start now , so that they can learn , and the whole government is worked in very fast , ....befors things get to complicated to do , ...

vote yes now , dont vote no if it needs to be done in 50 turns , do it now , vote YES .

have a nice day

Aggie · July 3, 2002, 19:38

I voted no, but several points
1) poll is invalid because of the first post
from the constitution

Fairness and Neutrality:
The first post in a poll thread should be completely neutral. No options are to be suggested for voting, just what each option entails in an unbiased format. The same is true for the voting options. While poking fun at an option will probably be acceptable, if someone thinks that it interferes with a voter’s decision, then they may deem it invalid. If you show bias in your options, then it is no longer fair. So be warned, if your poll is a landslide one way and should win but someone feels that the options you presented are unfair and calls for a validity vote, if it’s deemed invalid your poll is useless.

the first post here is bias.
2) I suspect that this is already allowed for and is thus unnecessary
3) This could lead to the military minister not keeping a good control of the troops. If there are too many units to control there are many people, sir ralph and nye, come to mind, who will provide their assistance and wisdom so as to prevent him from making an obvious error.
4) With the pace of our game there is plenty of time for the minister to study the map and units, so there really is no need for it.

ManicStarSeed · July 3, 2002, 20:01

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
We just need a general amendmant that allows for ALL Ministers to appoint aids AS THEY SEE FIT. Why break it down into seperate divisions. Give the power over this to the Ministers, and make some guidelines for how to inform/make official/whatever these aids to the general public.

I am with UnOrthOdOx on this

ThePlagueRat · July 4, 2002, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
1) poll is invalid because of the first post
from the constitution

Unfortunatly, yes...

I would have voted NO to the Constitution ratification.
(if it had not been for my recent visit to the "highcultural" festival in the Viking town of Roskilde, Denmark)
So it was ratified, and we gotta change it! (66% yea, needed)

My reason for being so negative is that I think the Constitution were not consistent and not meditated enough upon. It could have been discussed clause by clause and given some more common sense. I hope our developing minds of the Thinkers Guild will approve to my point here, and figure out some modification proposals for this constitution...

I do not think there is much common sense in demanding unbiased writing in the polls here. Should anyone be able to invalidate polls through their speculataions on other's intentions?

Spiffor · July 4, 2002, 18:14

I miss the abstain option. Although I strongly support aides jobs (generals, province governors, "ambassadors" some way), I feel uncomfortable with the exact amendment skywalker suggested.

I completely agree with Unorthodox : we need a general amendment on aides : every minister could hire aides and fire them as they see fit, and aides could only have competences within the ministry's field of competences.

Unorthodow, as it is your idea, would you mind starting a debate thread on such an amendment ?

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 18:37

Like Unortho said, if a minister needs help, he can ask. No need to force it upon him. I vote no (that it be required, not that we have them, and have them 'official').

ThePlagueRat · July 4, 2002, 19:31

So why does it have to be passed as a law then? (in order to be official)

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 19:35

Our Constitution is the only official document that any issues can be brought up to. Anything 'official' or enforced must go through the Constitution first.

ThePlagueRat · July 4, 2002, 19:47

And the constitution can be edited too... with a majority of 66%.
So we just have to go through it again! With some more consultation and some more use of common sense.
Am I not right? (OK, first I'll give it a second reading)

Jon Shafer · July 4, 2002, 19:57

In 2 weeks, of course.

I just don't think that having peons should be a requirement for a minister. If he gives his orders to the President beforehand, then why should he have aides? There's really no need to force him to have them, IMO.

Kloreep · July 5, 2002, 00:35

The amendment specifically says the SMC may appoint generals. So he can also handle it all himself if he wants to.

I like this amendment, as it gives both the president and the people the power to kick generals out themselves without going through the SMC.

Jon Shafer · July 5, 2002, 00:50

Yes, and... what says you can't appoint aides?

As the old saying goes "if it's not not allowed, then you can do it." Okay, so I made that up, but you get the point.