Future territory assignment
Scarabmonkey (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
m (remove senate category) |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
</box> | </box> | ||
[[Category: Senate Motion]] | [[Category: Senate Motion]] | ||
[[Category: Winter 376YE]] | [[Category: Winter 376YE]] | ||
[[Category:Unconstitutional]] | [[Category:Unconstitutional]] |
Revision as of 21:02, 3 April 2014
Proposed by Bregasland, seconded by Therunin.
Overview
- First captured virgin territory to be given as homeland to the Orcs
- Passed with 10 votes against
Date
- Passed Winter 376YE (Easter 2013).
Cost
- None
Legal Ramifications
- None - it is unconstitutional for the Senate to make decisions about what the Senate in the future must do.
OOC Notes
Empire is designed so that significant political events will occur that must be addressed by the players - issues like the allocation of territories which must be decided by the Senate. If players vote on future events - to dictate the outcome of an event before it has happened - that basically robs the future players of fun they should have had. It also creates all kinds of tedious situations where players are encouraged to vote to over-turn a decision they took earlier - we're keen to avoid the game being bogged down with too many procedural votes of this kind.
Rather the game is designed so that important votes like this are taken at the point where they are relevant - and many cannot be reversed - precisely to stop players trying to share things (which is a great in-character solution, but terrible for game drama) and to stop them constantly changing their collective mind every time the make-up of the Senate or similar changes.
For all these reasons and more, it is not possible for one of the houses to take a vote instructing any future body of Imperial citizens on how they must vote. Basically you can vote on things that are happening now - but not on things that are going to happen in the future.
Of course it is possible for the Senate to express its will - to make a public statement saying something should happen. That's perfectly acceptable - but it's not constitutional as a binding piece of law that characters are legally obliged to either follow or repeal. This statement clearly illustrates what the Senate wanted to happen at the time the vote was taken (being unconstitutional has no effect on that), so at the point where the Senators come to vote it is likely to be an important part of the politics - it just isn't a legal requirement.