|
FuriousGeorge Posts: 51
5/23/2017
|
Ni hao ma.
Bangkok Joins the Charter.
xie xie ni
-BB
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Tyre Posts: 1
5/23/2017
|
While it may not count, but as a candidate for the position of Mayor of Cairo, I too support this Charter
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
SpaceMonkey Posts: 3
5/23/2017
|
Space Monkey points out that 5 cities do not have rulers.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Vulpex Posts: 390
5/23/2017
|
Congratulations, the charter has now received sufficient support to be considered ratified. In particular it has received the support of the following Mayors:
- For Chicago - Vulpex
- For Warsaw - Krell
- For Karachi - Bossalinie
- For Delhi - Mountjim
- For New York - Hutton, Incidentally Emperor of Earth
- For Rabat - karr1981
- For Moscow - OriontheHunter
- For Lewis - jimbobdaz (Moon colony)
- For Rio de Janeiro - Zangorian
- For Houston - Valhalla
- For Madrid - SarahSmith
- For Berlin - Zip555
- For London - Hollister
- For Bangkok - FuriousGeorge
- For Paris - Cayhnos
And additionally the support of Tyre, candidate to the mayorship of Cairo.
Congratulations and peace be on the universe - Further support is always welcome and now the enforcement of the charter passes to the Manager of Lewis - jimbobdaz.
(Note edited to add Paris - confirmed but on a different thread)
edited by Vulpex on 5/23/2017
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
5/23/2017
|
I noticed we have neglected to address the grace period for deactivating research stations. We can't expect everyone to check in the turn an election is called, especially with players in different time-zones.
Since the charter has already passed I believe this falls to the discretion of the City Manager. May I point out that 150 turns is just over a day. I believe we can reasonably ask everyone running for office to check the results within 24 hours of the result.
Sin
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
5/23/2017
|
Also, Paris seems to have used the wrong thread to opt in.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Cayhnos Posts: 3
5/24/2017
|
I am mayor of Paris, I appoint Glowing to research for Paris.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Zip444 Posts: 9
5/24/2017
|
Glowing agrees to the charter (Paris)
edited by Zip444 on 5/24/2017
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
5/24/2017
|
Rereading the charter, I realize we neglected to address non-research civilian structures. This is important because it can tip the balance in elections for City Manager.
I had previously suggested that other construction be limited to a level 5 infrastructure factory of each type to be owned by the city manager. I figured a monopoly on Infrastructure would make it the loss of HQ bonus on other industry worth while.
Or we can just leave it as it stands and let anybody build anything other than research.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
jimbobdaz Posts: 83
5/24/2017
|
Hutton wrote:
Rereading the charter, I realize we neglected to address non-research civilian structures. This is important because it can tip the balance in elections for City Manager.
I had previously suggested that other construction be limited to a level 5 infrastructure factory of each type to be owned by the city manager. I figured a monopoly on Infrastructure would make it the loss of HQ bonus on other industry worth while.
Or we can just leave it as it stands and let anybody build anything other than research.
Loosing the HQ bonus, responsibility for managing the research facilities and apart from the artifact zero resources does make the moon undesirable, i could have stayed as mayor of london and taken my place at the table... i`m quite happy to tick along on the moon slowly building the population even with the lvl 5 cap on other industry... but then i`m completely biased on this subject 
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
5/24/2017
|
I take that to mean you would prefer an open door policy on non-research industry. Or an open door with the same cap.
Your bias here has to be taken into account, from both directions. The job had to be worth having, but you shouldn't be able to hold onto it if most of the stake-holders have turned against you.
Maybe we should just take a wait and see approach for now and have another convention on turn 10,000 to consider amendments if needed.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
jimbobdaz Posts: 83
5/24/2017
|
I know I am arguing against my own position but I see a problem with only allowing the city manager to have other industry... If the stakeholders turn against the manager then they would have to salvage everything they had built on the moon which could be devastating, I agree that the position should not be invunrable but like you have said, there is a price for the position and that should be taken into account... let's see how things play out for a while
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
TyreCorp Posts: 2
5/25/2017
|
A the official ruler of Cairo, I support the Moon Charter.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hammish Posts: 5
5/25/2017
|
Los Angeles joins the charter and agrees to abide by the terms.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Vrng Minerals Posts: 1
5/25/2017
|
The ruler of Cape Town supports this Charter
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Hutton Posts: 276
5/26/2017
|
jimbobdaz wrote:
I know I am arguing against my own position but I see a problem with only allowing the city manager to have other industry... If the stakeholders turn against the manager then they would have to salvage everything they had built on the moon which could be devastating, I agree that the position should not be invunrable but like you have said, there is a price for the position and that should be taken into account... let's see how things play out for a while
So the alternative is to have a completely open door policy, which means that stake-holders don't have complete and equal control over the election of City Manager. Maybe that's even a good thing. It does give you some serious incumbent advantage, but it also means a smaller number of people need to unite to throw you out if they really want to invest in building industry on the moon.
Or we could have an open door with level caps. This would still put a damper on the City Manager's economy, so we could combine it with my previous suggestion that the city manager get a monopoly on certain industry on the moon like Civilian Services.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Vulpex Posts: 390
5/26/2017
|
Hutton wrote:
Maybe we should just take a wait and see approach for now and have another convention on turn 10,000 to consider amendments if needed.
At this point I would second this approach - unless there is some crisis that brings this discussion again to the fore I prefer not to break something that seems to be working well at this point.
|
|
|
0
link
|