| Welcome to Founding Fathers. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Governors | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Thu 9 Jul 2009, 16:43:58 (636 Views) | |
| Battle | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 16:43:58 Post #1 |
![]() ![]()
|
While I understand that you guys want Senators (and I do too, so don't worry), I do believe that in a time when state government was seen as more important than federal government, governors could be a very good feature to have. |
|
Valentine Battle Speaker of the House of Representatives Member of the House of Representatives Chairman of the Federalist Party Maryland Federalist | |
![]() |
|
| James Rottnek | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 17:00:29 Post #2 |
![]() ![]()
|
I agree. Today, the confederate government (I have decided to refuse to call it federal, because we are legally a confederacy - that is, a free union of sovereign states who have the right to opt-out of that union at any time) has amassed so much unconstitutional power that the President has become one of, if not the, most important person in our country's confederate government. In the founding times of our nation, the Presidency was only mildly important and the Vice-President was a job NO ONE wanted (in fact this was the case until the early twentieth century I believe). Therefore, I believe it is important to have Governors. |
| Congressman William Henry Sherman | |
![]() |
|
| Battle | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 17:38:18 Post #3 |
![]() ![]()
|
I just had a thought on this as to what could make everyone happy. First of all, we hold gubernatorial elections. This has to be the main character of the player, and upon reaching victory that character becomes a Governor. He is then granted a second character, who will serve as the senior Senator. So, this will allow for a bicameral Congress and institute Governors, who are far more important. Secondly, we use the previously suggested application method for the Junior Senator position, with the main character again becoming the elected official with the character allowed a Multi to keep the House going. This would give us a pretty crowded Senate, keep the House going as a starter position and retirement position for those done running elections, as well as allow for Governors who can then affect their states and move the story along. We could also allow House multis for Cabinet officials. This, of course, could only be done temporarily while the game is still small. As the player base expands we could adopt a new system, or just keep expanding the country as the player base grows. Either way, I think this is the best way to implement Governors and Senators for the time being. |
|
Valentine Battle Speaker of the House of Representatives Member of the House of Representatives Chairman of the Federalist Party Maryland Federalist | |
![]() |
|
| Will | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 18:05:42 Post #4 |
![]()
|
We had it out... I fully support Gov's but they are solid in not doing it.. We're going to have to run it as-is for now. If you guys manage to convince another admin then we'll go back into it =( |
|
International Administrator AIM = BlutarskyTAR E-Mail: william.swisher@gmail.com | |
![]() |
|
| Battle | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 18:08:29 Post #5 |
![]() ![]()
|
If that is the case, then the Administrators opposed should lay out their cases for us, the player-base that strongly desires Governors, to question and understand. |
|
Valentine Battle Speaker of the House of Representatives Member of the House of Representatives Chairman of the Federalist Party Maryland Federalist | |
![]() |
|
| T-Schultz | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 18:09:03 Post #6 |
![]() ![]()
|
I second that! |
|
Frederick Huxley Democratic-Republican Kentucky Congressman Democratic-Republican Party Chairman | |
![]() |
|
| James Rottnek | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 18:09:19 Post #7 |
![]() ![]()
|
I fully support this. |
| Congressman William Henry Sherman | |
![]() |
|
| Matos | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 18:57:08 Post #8 |
![]() ![]()
|
As do I |
|
Lewis William Wordton-Grey Congressman from Massachusetts' 7th Congressional District | |
![]() |
|
| Zachariah McShan | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 19:02:47 Post #9 |
![]() ![]()
|
I Support this as well. |
|
Zachariah McShan, Congressman from Virginia since 1790 BIO/Office/Voting Record/Estate | |
![]() |
|
| DIVA | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 21:42:53 Post #10 |
|
Sexiest Bitch Alive
![]()
|
I am actually all for RP'ing the Senate and having governors. I needed to know how they would be run and so forth, in addition to what their role would be here in addition to how we would use them and the states legislature before I could sign off on the idea. So if you can quell my fears and trepidation, I would be all for bringing in governors, RP'ing the senate, and so forth. |
![]() AIM/Yahoo: FoundFatherDIVA | |
![]() |
|
| T-Schultz | Thu 9 Jul 2009, 23:23:16 Post #11 |
![]() ![]()
|
My understanding is that the governor would serve as a chief executive for a state and be in charge of the state militia. |
|
Frederick Huxley Democratic-Republican Kentucky Congressman Democratic-Republican Party Chairman | |
![]() |
|
| Battle | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:03:40 Post #12 |
![]() ![]()
|
My belief would be that a governor would be elected, and then do what governors actually do. He would have to submit legislation, try and improve his state's economy, and more than likely, eventually enter into struggles with the federal government and decide the long-term status of his own position and that of his state. The admins could just simulate whether or not a bill passes and its long-term affects. |
|
Valentine Battle Speaker of the House of Representatives Member of the House of Representatives Chairman of the Federalist Party Maryland Federalist | |
![]() |
|
| Will | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:04:27 Post #13 |
![]()
|
right but what day to day activities and such would you want to be doing, I mean if we make Govs we don't want people to just sit there and do nothing so give us ideas of what activities you'd want to be heavily involved in on a regular basis. |
|
International Administrator AIM = BlutarskyTAR E-Mail: william.swisher@gmail.com | |
![]() |
|
| Thomas Sheirbrooke | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:13:53 Post #14 |
![]() ![]()
|
I don't know about governors, I know when we tried it in TAR... it feel flat on its face (being one of the Governors there). You almost need an admin 100% there to respond to Governor's actions, etc, writting news stories to which the Governors can respond, etc. At least for the House you can write a news story, like about France v England, and it's pertinent to what you do and can do as a Congressman. |
|
Thomas Sheirbrooke Maryland's 3rd District Federalist | |
![]() |
|
| DIVA | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:15:32 Post #15 |
|
Sexiest Bitch Alive
![]()
|
Thank you will, that is what I was trying to get at. ;0) Great feedback guys ;0) |
![]() AIM/Yahoo: FoundFatherDIVA | |
![]() |
|
| Battle | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:16:31 Post #16 |
![]() ![]()
|
It may have fell flat on its face at TAR, but look at how well it has been handled at other games such as VP. We'd have the chance to change the long-term face of our country. I know that if I were to become Governor of Maryland, I'd certainly dedicate my time to a number of causes, which I can list if it will help this case. Also, that's why I suggested that they be given a Senator as a multi. It would allow them to fill in the time not spent as Governor with time in the Senate. |
|
Valentine Battle Speaker of the House of Representatives Member of the House of Representatives Chairman of the Federalist Party Maryland Federalist | |
![]() |
|
| DIVA | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:19:30 Post #17 |
|
Sexiest Bitch Alive
![]()
|
I could see a Senate multi, but can I ask why not a Housie for now? And expand into the Senate as we grow. This way the house remains active. Just a thought. i am not throwing out your suggestion. I am just countering with another idea ;0) |
![]() AIM/Yahoo: FoundFatherDIVA | |
![]() |
|
| Edward Ward | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:19:37 Post #18 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well, yes, but I think she wants real details. Now, in this period the powers of government offices were still very much up to interpretation, so to some extent you should leave it to the individual players to decide how far those powers extend. At the very least though, Governors should have control of the militia, treasury, appoinment of Senators and Judges (the latter probably won't come up in game though), and veto powers over legislation. Additionally, for our purposes, we would let governors submit legislation to their legislatures (technically through an unnamed NPC assemblyman). As for how the legislature works, mostly it should be voting on legislation submitted by the governors, with an occasional opposition bill being passed for opposition or otherwise unpopular governors. As for the make up, we could just have x number of reps and have their bias determined by looking at that state's house delegation from 1798-1810 (to eliminate outliers that you would get using 1 or 2 terms), tempered by the popularity of that governor. I would suggest that one of the less busy admins take over state government affairs, but you could also add one specifically for that function. Additionally, I suggest we stagger elections to reduce the chance of anyone running without player opposition. For states in which there is only one district or only one party is being actively represented, we would allow a player of the unrepresented party from another state run against them as a private citizen without penalty. This option is also available when the Reps for that state just don't want to run, but in that case the candidate would take some penalty for not being well know/experienced. Say MA, PA, NJ, DE, VA, VT, NC, and NH in 1796 SC, GA, KY, TN, MD, RI, CT, and NY in 1798 Looking at that, I realized I didn't really answer your question. Damn. Edited by Edward Ward, Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:21:04.
|
|
Edward Sebastian Ward North Carolina Democratic-Republican "It's good to have land." | |
![]() |
|
| Battle | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 00:22:36 Post #19 |
![]() ![]()
|
A Housie is quite possible as well, but we also have to remember that the House was much smaller in 1796, and we want to leave open room for new players to start. |
|
Valentine Battle Speaker of the House of Representatives Member of the House of Representatives Chairman of the Federalist Party Maryland Federalist | |
![]() |
|
| James Rottnek | Fri 10 Jul 2009, 01:24:07 Post #20 |
![]() ![]()
|
I figured that the Governor's would do things such as introduce legislation into the state legislature, make speeches and appearances throughout the state, speak with concerned citizens groups, meet with legislators to get his agenda passed, meet with the Representatives from his state to advocate state interests, make the state budget, occasionally have to make appointments (possibly by choosing from a list provided by an admin), and similar things. As well, I believe that we could populate the Senate with Governor multis until the game gets more people. |
| Congressman William Henry Sherman | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Administrative Center · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




















3:06 PM Jul 11