SENATE BILL: Save Na'rmer for a Wonder of the World

Arnelos · January 20, 2003, 14:50

PURPOSE: To make a Senate decision on the use of our Great Leader, Na'rmer

The Senate hereby decides that our current Great Leader, Na'rmer, should be fortified in the city of Apolyton and saved there until such time as he can be used to build a wonder of the world. The Senate will decide what wonder will be built and where it will be built (or delegate such decisions to ministers of its choice) through the passage of later senate bills.

This poll will last 72 hours, as required by the NewCon.

Options:

1. Yea
2. Nay
3. Abstain

All citizens of Apolytonia have the right to vote in this poll.

Arnelos · January 20, 2003, 14:53

Technically, because later bills trump earlier ones, it's even possible that Na'rmer can be saved but not for a wonder of the world if this passes.

Really all this bill does is allow for Na'rmer to be kept around as long as it takes the Senate to make up its mind... which in turn allows the administration to keep holding turnchats w/o having to sit around waiting on the Senate to do something with Na'rmer.

Since it seems many of us want to save Na'rmer for a later time ANYHOW, we probably wouldn't mind if the administration was moving the game forward while we were debating it.

ruby_maser · January 20, 2003, 14:59

You realize saving him means no chance for GLs until you use him, right?

Arnelos · January 20, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by ruby_maser
You realize saving him means no chance for GLs until you use him, right?

Yes, we do.

Go read the previous thread to see why we now only don't mind, but actually think this isn't such a bad idea given recent history with GL's

Aro · January 20, 2003, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
Technically, because later bills trump earlier ones, it's even possible that Na'rmer can be saved but not for a wonder of the world if this passes.

Really all this bill does is allow for Na'rmer to be kept around as long as it takes the Senate to make up its mind... which in turn allows the administration to keep holding turnchats w/o having to sit around waiting on the Senate to do something with Na'rmer.

Since it seems many of us want to save Na'rmer for a later time ANYHOW, we probably wouldn't mind if the administration was moving the game forward while we were debating it.

Thank you, Arnelos.
I couldn't say better <------- (and I meant it!

)

ManicStarSeed · January 20, 2003, 16:14

Right on Arnelos, I support this. I say the the UN is the most important wonder to control. Save it for that.

Mss

Hot Mustard · January 20, 2003, 16:22

Oh boy, here we go. Now that Arnelos is a Senator, I forsee many new Senate Bills...

I agree with this one - no more GLs for awhile please - I'd like to enjoy the game rather than waiting weeks on end for progress.

Donegeal · January 20, 2003, 18:05

As ridiculous as it seems to hold onto a GL, it is probably the best answer.

Aggie · January 21, 2003, 00:27

This is a good solution, with hoover we can outbuild anybody and perhaps our great gL can be held for insurance against Un victory by the AI. In short no outcome for any other option can overcome the short comings of the comp building the UN.
Aggie

Meshelic · January 21, 2003, 01:37

I believe this is a good resolution. Delaying the game due to a Great Leader is no longer acceptable (IMHO). I vote yes.

There are those who will say: "But we can't get another GL because we're saving Na'armer!"

To that I would say: "What difference does it make? We have Na'armer to use when we need to, why would we need another one again?"

Good idea Arnelos.

I also agree with Dejon: Now that Arnelos is only a Senator, we can expect Bills aplenty!

Arnelos · January 21, 2003, 02:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Meshelic
Good idea Arnelos.

FYI: It wasn't my idea, I just made the bill

It was roadcage's idea:

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
I have thought and thought and thought about this and have finally come up with a good reason to wait for UN.

It is many turns away, and since we really don't need any more GL's, this would ensure that we would not be cursed with another for a long time.

Meshelic · January 21, 2003, 02:54

Good idea Roadcage

Good working bringing it to Bill Arnelos

joncnunn · January 21, 2003, 11:53

I'd sugest that Na'rmer be used to rush Wall Street now.

This would allow us to get additional leaders.

Aro · January 21, 2003, 12:29

Anyway, we can run a turnchat Thursday or Friday.

Panag · January 21, 2003, 13:12

hi ,

we should use GL's at ones , we should not let the wait and grow old in some barracks , .....

we shall get a new one , and an other one , and an other one , so use them

have a nice day

CiverDan · January 22, 2003, 17:22

Why not use him for a Army...Prebuild the Palace at Ferropolis at the appropriate time and switch to the UN. we are talkin 2-3 turns difference between using the leader for the UN and Building it at Ferropolis.

roadcage · January 22, 2003, 17:27

Yes, Army is the correct thing from in-game conditions, but everyone is so shell shocked over the Seti fiasco, they just don't want to be cursed with another GL.

I understand this. I even suggested it. But still, I could not bring myself to vote for it.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

E_T · January 22, 2003, 17:56

I would like to see another Army built, we have several chances to get another GL. And with our Porduction Capabilities AND our Tech lead, we should have NO problem building UN.

E_T

joncnunn · January 22, 2003, 18:02

Perhaps a Senator could propse a bill that the DM be authorized to rush whatever he wants with the GLs?

I'd use the current one for Wall Street and should the next one appear in the near future, use it for the CIA.

Panag · January 22, 2003, 18:03

hi ,

very soon we shall be able to build armies , so what we really should do is use our GL's to build wonders , wheter small or big , ......

have a nice day

Panag · January 22, 2003, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Perhaps a Senator could propse a bill that the DM be authorized to rush whatever he wants with the GLs?

I'd use the current one for Wall Street and should the next one appear in the near future, use it for the CIA.

hi ,

now we are speaking sense

have a nice day

Shiber · January 23, 2003, 06:56

It makes perfect sense. We elect the DM, and he decides what to do with the GLs.
At this point when GLs aren't necessary for our advancement, and in fact make little difference since we can build everything ourselves, we don't need a procedure based on direct democracy to determine their purpose. We can have an elected official do that, and thus take all this necessary hassle off our heads for good!

roadcage · January 23, 2003, 10:22

Quote:

Perhaps a Senator could propse a bill that the DM be authorized to rush whatever he wants with the GLs?

Totally unnecessary. This is even worse than a "committee" picking the GL's assignment. GL's are big in-game events. It is necessary that the senate be involved, otherwise we might as well disband the senate.

What we need is some mechanism to ensure that a viable senate bill gets drafted in a timely fashion. Our history demonstrates that the senate does vote in a timely matter. We have never had a quorum problem.

I have no problem with just about any mechanism we can create here to ensure that GL bills gets drafted. We have taken this path before. That's what Amendment 1 is all about. Remember, Amendment 1 was born out of the frustration of the FM to get enabeling diplomacy bills drafted.

Passage of a bill as indicated in the quote would take us another step along the path towards a highly structured environment as can be seen by checking out the CFC forums. Democracy is at it's best when the chaos of open discussion and free flow of ideas is allowed to proceed. That is the greatest strength of our SPDG. We have disorderly open discourse among a diverse group of CIV3 players. The cacophony on our forum is music to these ears.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

Shiber · January 23, 2003, 10:49

Roadcage: surely we would want the entire game to be a direct democracy, where everything is voted upon, but that simply isn't possible, so we only vote on the major issues, and leave the rest to elected officials - as in a representational democracy.
Nowadays, a vast majority (just look at the results of this poll!) thinks that GLs aren't important anymore. In fact, they believe that GLs are so unimportant that they'd rather give up GLs altogether than have them, along with the hassle of having to decide what to use them for, and the delay to the game.
So, which way do you think is better: a committee or another representational body which decides on the matter of GLs, or no GLs at all?

Arnelos · January 23, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by roadcage
Democracy is at it's best when the chaos of open discussion and free flow of ideas is allowed to proceed. That is the greatest strength of our SPDG. We have disorderly open discourse among a diverse group of CIV3 players. The cacophony on our forum is music to these ears.

"...instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all."
- Pericles, Funeral Oration for the dead soldiers of Athens (as recorded by Thucydides)

Aro · January 23, 2003, 11:28

Agreed, roadcage.
Nice quote, Arnelos...

Shiber · January 23, 2003, 12:11

Most of the people don't want to give up their right to choose what the GL is used for, but most people would rather throw away GLs altogether than have to delay the game to use their right to choose what to do with the GLs. You gotta admit this is absurd.

Aggie · January 23, 2003, 14:32

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn
Perhaps a Senator could propse a bill that the DM be authorized to rush whatever he wants with the GLs?

I'd use the current one for Wall Street and should the next one appear in the near future, use it for the CIA.

This would have to admendment to be constitutional since it would change a part of the constitution.
Aggie

Aro · January 23, 2003, 20:37

Ok, Na'rmer should wait.
I'm detopping this.
We'll run the chat tomorrow, but would be great if we have a decision about Na'rmer in time for the subsequent turnchat. It's up to you, Senators...

Panag · January 24, 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Shiber
Most of the people don't want to give up their right to choose what the GL is used for, but most people would rather throw away GLs altogether than have to delay the game to use their right to choose what to do with the GLs. You gotta admit this is absurd.

hi ,

we should not trow the right away , .....

but we should plan ahead

have a nice day