Amendment: Governors Rights

Drogue · April 9, 2003, 08:23

Since this has already been discussed in the unofficial poll which I created, I am now posting the poll for my 2nd amendment to the UN constitution, in two parts. Article 1 and article 2.

I propose that in the Governors section of the Constitution, we insert:
Article 1:

Quote:

*However, if a square is in the base radius of bases in 2 or more regions, there must be the consent of all Governors of those regions before any terraforming is ordered

Article 2:

Quote:

*or before that square is crawled or worked

(added onto the end of Article 1)

If both are passed, then the wording changes, (because then the Article 1 and 2 together will look like:

Quote:

*However, if a square is in the base radius of bases in 2 or more regions, there must be the consent of all Governors of those regions before any terraforming is ordered, or before that square is crawled or worked

Therefore, the Governor section would now look like:

Quote:

Governors:

Have the rights and duties of:
*Ordering the commissioner to:
**move formers for his region
**move crawlers for his region
**start build queues for his region
**rush constructions for his region
**move workers
*However, if a square is in the base radius of bases in 2 or more regions, there must be the consent of all Governors of those regions before any terraforming is ordered, or before that square is crawled or worked
[all within the parameters given by the Director of Internal Affairs]
*Advising any director that concerns his region
*Polling for guidelines for his region
*Carrying out orders from the Director of Internal Affairs
*Advising the rest of the faction about this region the best he can

You have 2 days. Please vote for either Yea, Nay or Write-in. Since it needs 2/3 Yea to pass, any abstain would be exactly the same as a Nay, thus only those 3 options are needed.

Drogue · April 9, 2003, 14:08

Could people who say no please post as to why? I know you don not have to, and if you don't want to, then don't, but I'd quite like to know what people object to about it. Thank you.

Maniac · April 9, 2003, 15:11

I wanted to vote Nay on both articles, but I accidently clicked on yes for the second.

The reason I say Nay is this:

Quote:

[all within the parameters given by the Director of Internal Affairs]

as in that the DIA should decide who gets authority over the square.

Drogue · April 9, 2003, 15:21

Hmmm. I accept that, although I thinkl the DIA is way to powerful now. Also being allowed to be a Governor too, which I thought was voted against.

Cedayon · April 9, 2003, 15:28

I move that we officially make DIA stand for Dictator of Internal Affairs, it would be more accurate

Drogue · April 9, 2003, 15:38

It seems that it would, except that they are elected

Cedayon · April 9, 2003, 16:13

I'm not particularly concerned about how one becomes DIA, just with the level of power one has as DIA... and it's not like anyone would dare vote against TKG

lucky22 · April 9, 2003, 16:16

I was originally in favor of this idea but realized how much potential difficulty there is in gaining consent of both (or all) governors in a reasonable amount of time. I voted nay to both and say leave it to the DIA (for whom I hope the green vote prevails).

Drogue · April 9, 2003, 17:16

Ok... I must say I am a little surprised, that we have a 9-2 in favour in the last poll, and already 3 against. Is there so much a difference? Is this people changing their minds, or disagreeing with the way I've put it?

ColdWizard · April 9, 2003, 18:23

maybe the 3rd nay is from lucky22 changing opinions, though I wonder where the other 5 in favor went.

GeneralTacticus · April 10, 2003, 03:24

I voted Yea to both, although I'd say that it should be that a Governor need only not object for whatever it is to go ahead.

Hercules · April 10, 2003, 05:51

I voted yea to both.

Drogue · April 10, 2003, 06:25

GT: I tend to agree, and it could be interpreted as such as such by the court. Hence it only needs consent, not full support.

Drogue · April 11, 2003, 06:34

Please vote Yea. I can understand the practicalities involved, but most Governor's are active, and it does not take much to PM, or eve just post, that you would liek to do something, and if that Governor objects. Furthermore, it will only happen in a very few disputed squares. Why is the 2nd one passing, if the first is not? Surely the second is the same amount of hassle for something less important?

If I did a new amendment, stating that it was only for major terraforming decisions (ie. ones that must be polled) would that be better?

GeneralTacticus · April 11, 2003, 06:50

The second one is still passing, actually.

Drogue · April 11, 2003, 09:36

Yes, that is correct, as I mentioned in my post. However I ned to redraft the first, and was wondering whether changing it to be only major terraforming decisions needed agreement would let it pass?

GeneralTacticus · April 11, 2003, 21:45

/me shrugs.

Up to you, I suppose.