Historian Campaign Thread - Page 2

Nubclear · July 6, 2002, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Hmmm. Will either of you pay attention to the fact that an adherent of Jupiter and Mars is among us (you)?

I don't care what colour. I don't care about the civ name. I don't care about the UU. Beer and M&Ms must be served!

Ok.....

notyoueither · July 6, 2002, 23:33

Thanks. I have an alter even.

/Edit. Errrm... That's an altar. Too bad there is no Roman god of spelling. I could use one.

MrWhereItsAt · July 7, 2002, 07:06

Why bother with amendments? The Constitution is there to stop ppl doing things by accident or design where they shouldn't. If the Historian, Ministers etc have control over their respective areas of influence (which they DO), then there is not a restriction on how they run that area. Thus, a Historian can name a co-Historian, Scribes, whatever, similar to how it is being discussed that Ambassadors can be named by the Foreign Minister.

Plus it's Historian. No-one will be miffed if there're two. Think common sense - not necessarily Constitution-bound.

History Guy · July 7, 2002, 11:26

Quite. As for how many times I will post, I hope several times before time is up. I was thinking that we could post a history thread that could be made to stick up top, so that it won't get lost. I must be going on holiday for the next week, but when I come back I will get to work.

Panag · July 7, 2002, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Why bother with amendments? The Constitution is there to stop ppl doing things by accident or design where they shouldn't. If the Historian, Ministers etc have control over their respective areas of influence (which they DO), then there is not a restriction on how they run that area. Thus, a Historian can name a co-Historian, Scribes, whatever, similar to how it is being discussed that Ambassadors can be named by the Foreign Minister.

Plus it's Historian. No-one will be miffed if there're two. Think common sense - not necessarily Constitution-bound.

hi ,

, imagine if every minister start to name five aides , ....and Trip a complet joint chiefs of staff , ....there has to be a limit somewhere , ...

have a nice day

Nubclear · July 7, 2002, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

, imagine if every minister start to name five aides , ....and Trip a complet joint chiefs of staff , ....there has to be a limit somewhere , ...

have a nice day

Are you saying historian is equally as important as the Presidential decision and should be treated as such?

Panag · July 7, 2002, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Are you saying historian is equally as important as the Presidential decision and should be treated as such?

hi ,

nope , but read the above post , ...

have a nice day

Nubclear · July 7, 2002, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

nope , but read the above post , ...

have a nice day

I have. But you say that we must impose a limit on all positions, including Historian. But why? Historian does not make important decisions, and having two won't do that much damage as it would in say, a SMC position.

I mean, for most of the first term you didn't even have a historian but no one really seemed to notice. If you are truely equating historian to president, then you should've been one complaining as I'm sure you would if the president stopped posting.

But you did not. Why? Because again, the President position is more important than the historian position.

This post was not directed towards anyone, nor was it ment to offend anyone.

Panag · July 7, 2002, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

I have. But you say that we must impose a limit on all positions, including Historian. But why? Historian does not make important decisions, and having two won't do that much damage as it would in say, a SMC position.

I mean, for most of the first term you didn't even have a historian but no one really seemed to notice. If you are truely equating historian to president, then you should've been one complaining as I'm sure you would if the president stopped posting.

But you did not. Why? Because again, the President position is more important than the historian position.

This post was not directed towards anyone, nor was it ment to offend anyone.

hi ,

ahem , where did panag wrote that there was a limit on historians , .....

what panag wrote is this ; unless there is some control , very soon every office and job is going to have more people then there are citizens , ....

imagine we have 10 historians , ......

have a nice day

Nubclear · July 7, 2002, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

ahem , where did panag wrote that there was a limit on historians , .....

what panag wrote is this ; unless there is some control , very soon every office and job is going to have more people then there are citizens , ....

imagine we have 10 historians , ......

have a nice day

You wrote this:

Quote:

...there has to be a limit somewhere ,

I may be misunderstanding, could you please clarify what you meant by this?

Panag · July 7, 2002, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

You wrote this:

I may be misunderstanding, could you please clarify what you meant by this?

hi ,

okay , listen the picture should be clear by now , ...

> there should be a limit on the number of government places , ....otherwise we gonna have 300 jobs for 250 people , ....

and yes there should be a limit on historians , when they are with four , or ten , that can only get things more conplicated , one , even two , yes , but lets say four , nope that is a bit to large , ...

have a nice day

Verto · July 7, 2002, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

okay , listen the picture should be clear by now , ...

> there should be a limit on the number of government places , ....otherwise we gonna have 300 jobs for 250 people , ....

and yes there should be a limit on historians , when they are with four , or ten , that can only get things more conplicated , one , even two , yes , but lets say four , nope that is a bit to large , ...

have a nice day

No need for more than 1 or 2 historians, because - no offense to any - but what does a historian have to do that requires so many?

"Don't use two heads when one will do."

Nubclear · July 7, 2002, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto

No need for more than 1 or 2 historians, because - no offense to any - but what does a historian have to do that requires so many?

"Don't use two heads when one will do."

If there are two good writers, then obviously if they pool their resources and work together they can come up with much better work.

But I agree, 1 or 2 historians should be fine.

Panag · July 7, 2002, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

If there are two good writers, then obviously if they pool their resources and work together they can come up with much better work.

But I agree, 1 or 2 historians should be fine.

hi ,

thats it , two that combine their resources , but no more , ...

still , would you not say that one can do it also , is it really needed at this time to have two , ....

have a nice day

Nubclear · July 7, 2002, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

thats it , two that combine their resources , but no more , ...

still , would you not say that one can do it also , is it really needed at this time to have two , ....

have a nice day

Well why not? If you have two skilled writers, only good can come of combining them.

Panag · July 7, 2002, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

Well why not? If you have two skilled writers, only good can come of combining them.

hi ,

or they can start to get at each others throath , ....

have a nice day

Verto · July 8, 2002, 00:25

They can very easily become competing with each other over who gets to cover what, how much each gets to write, so forth.

Although a coup de'tat over historian would be humorous...

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
They can very easily become competing with each other over who gets to cover what, how much each gets to write, so forth.

Although a coup de'tat over historian would be humorous...

Or they could write together without conflict. That is also a possibility.

Verto · July 8, 2002, 00:30

True, of course. Although a coup would sell more papers.

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 00:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Verto
True, of course. Although a coup would sell more papers.

Yeah. And considering how were charging a buck a paper....It would be more profitable as well. (Kidding, of course)

Captain · July 8, 2002, 10:50

Don't worry about the Constitution.

Further, if our Judicial Amendment passes, then if anyone has a problem with two historians, they can bring the case before the courts to determine the Constitutionality.

I doubt anyone will since having two will only serve to improve the recording of our great nation's history.

If it comes to it, we'll use the precedent set by the existence of Ambassadors and assistants to 'allow' it.

notyoueither · July 8, 2002, 18:57

I guess the possibility of disagreements that cannot be reconciled may be the best reason to elect 1. The 1 can then name the other as a 'co'-historian (if that is prefered over 'assistant'). If there were a dispute, then it would be clear who decides it.

However, you two seem eager to embark on this together so best of luck to you.

Timeline · July 8, 2002, 22:03

I agree with NYE, there should be an elected historian, and that man/woman can choose to appoint an assistant if wanted, or even a "co-historian".

UnOrthOdOx · July 8, 2002, 22:06

I will have to disagree. There are no polocy decisions being made in this position, what real disputes are going to arise? Give teamwork a shot! If these disagreements arise, they could always put it up to public vote...

Sheik · July 8, 2002, 22:40

How big of a document at the end of the game do we expect to have (Assuming the game goes into the modern age)?

How in-depth will you guys as historians go?

Nubclear · July 8, 2002, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheik
How big of a document at the end of the game do we expect to have (Assuming the game goes into the modern age)?

This cannot be determined considering still in the ancient era.

Quote:

How in-depth will you guys as historians go?

Although I cannot speak for my co historian, I will try to go into as much detail as possible without making it confusing for the reader.

History Guy · July 8, 2002, 23:19

I agree with Tassader. As much detail as possible, with as little confusion as possible.

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 01:12

Considering they really can't write yet anyway...