Term 4 - Nominations for Science Advisor [Archive]

Civman2004

Oct 25, 2004, 04:51 AM

I apologise for the very lengthy post below, but feel I need to thoroughly say what I stand for:

Now that I'm not at the office I have a chance to expand on what I said above.

It has been interesting to watch in this DG a lot of discussion of what I will term Demogame Philosophy (something that I haven't seen evidence of in looking through the archives of the past DGs). Demogame Philosophy is about why we play the Demogame, what we achieve by playing it, and why it provides enjoyment. There seem to be different ideas about this. Some play it to be part of the political process itself, ie it is the journey that matters rather than the destination. Some are very focussed on the destination (desired victory conditionfor example) and less interested in the political process. There are other varieties of thinking also.

Another point of philosophical debate has been the role of the various ministries. Where does the Demogame fit in? Is it direct Democracy (ie polling of every question) or is it an extreme Republic (ie polling of positions and they can decide things). The current situation seems to be between the two.

The disadvantage of what we currently have is very evident in technology. We overwhelmingly voted to research physics, which in itself is a completely useless technology unless you want to get Magnetism or TOG straight away. We then proceeded to debate the next technology, a debate which should have been finalised before we researched physics. I note that the science department is now polling two techs in advance rather than just each as it comes up.

I would argue that we would have been better off polling various policy options.

In my past term as FA Minister it was also evident. The Iroquois war was split very closely down the middle. Rather than a specific question, perhaps I should have outlined a few complete policy directions, better thought through, and found the WOTP on each. The problem with the Iroquois issue was that it looked set to pass, then some complaints came up, and it didn't. Our process' inefficiency was revealed as we acted in preparation for a war that never came - those resources could have been directed elsewhere for more peaceful expansion.

I believe that in some (not all) areas we should poll complete policy doctrines rather than polling every detail. Officials should be elected based on ability to develop and implement policy and commitment to the DG. I have a vision of elected officials presenting well mapped out policies, often in conjunction with each other, and then polling these as complete policies. To challenge a policy direction, once set, should be possible, but should be difficult, and should require adequate reasons (such as a significant shift in gameplay or a significant debate).

If elected as science minister I will implement the above. I will poll broad policy lines. For example, there is no point researching medicine without then researching either sanitation or electricity (which is then useless without something else), but our current system could be as follows:
Sanitation path - 10 votes
Electricity path - 8 votes
Communism path - 12 votes
But if the initial poll was Communism v Medicine, Medicine would win. At the next poll, Communism would win (assuming votes stayed the same).

Medicine then Communism is a bad research path option, so we won't do it, unless we start down the path to either Electricity or Sanitation and then something happens to change what we should do.

I hope that explains my vision for what could happen. I think science is the best place to start trying it - it's a lot more black and white than the other ministries, as there are limited options available.

If elected, I will implement the above, and attempt to do so faithfully and with flexibility.