View Full Version : Government Structure (Strider's/Daveshack's proposal)


Chieftess
Feb 16, 2005, 06:43 PM
Government Structure (Strider's/Daveshack's proposal) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=111916)

This is a pre-made constitution. If everything looks right, we can vote on this one and implement it. Any changes, or additions can still be done based on the other discussion and polls.

Black_Hole
Feb 16, 2005, 07:06 PM
if it is premade where is it at?

Cyc
Feb 16, 2005, 07:15 PM
if it is premade where is it at?
:lol: It's a Bush Proposal, BH. It's put together after it's approved. :lol:

Chieftess
Feb 16, 2005, 07:17 PM
Look at the links in the poll...

Daveshack's (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2531442&postcount=1)

Strider's (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2536131&postcount=1)

Black_Hole
Feb 16, 2005, 07:24 PM
:lol: It's a Bush Proposal, BH. It's put together after it's approved. :lol:
sorry, I forgot to memorzie those Bush philosophies by heart ;)

technically CT it isnt premade, we have 2 pre made constitutions that we need to smush together

ravensfire
Feb 16, 2005, 11:34 PM
Realistically, it's only the Executive branch that should require "smooshing", and honestly, I just don't see how.

Go with the option that got the most support - DaveShacks' concept.

-- Ravensfire

Black_Hole
Feb 17, 2005, 07:41 AM
Realistically, it's only the Executive branch that should require "smooshing", and honestly, I just don't see how.

Go with the option that got the most support - DaveShacks' concept.

-- Ravensfire
I agree, maybe we just use DaveShacks plan for the branches and use striders plan for everything else...

Chieftess
Feb 17, 2005, 09:19 PM
That sounds like a plan. Someone should write it up nicely.

CivGeneral
Feb 17, 2005, 10:31 PM
I was hoping to see that the traditional government would still be around :-/.

ravensfire
Feb 18, 2005, 02:33 PM
Proposed Article D, E and F (Exec, Legis and Judic)

Article D.

The Executive Branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the people. It is headed by the President, who is the primary designated player. The President will take direction from a cabinet of leaders and other elected and appointed officials through the game session instruction thread.
1. The President coordinates the activities of the Strategic Council and Tactical Directors.
2. The Strategic Council is responsible for the creation of long-term plans for $COUNTRY_NAME. These leaders do not handle day-to-day activities, but focus on the overall direction of their areas of expertise. These plans are posted once a week in a planning thread, and are updated as needed.
a. The Consul for Domestic Policy establishes goals for city settlement, workforce and fiscal management.
b. The Consul for External Policy establishes goals for our dealings with foreign nations, both peaceful relations and military strategic goals.
c. The Consul for Cultural Policy establishes plans for the cultural growth of $COUNTRY_NAME, including cultural levels, wonders and space ships.
d. The Consul for Resources and Technologies Policy establish research goals and trade parameters.
3. The Tactical Directors implement the plans of the Strategic Council into specific instructions given to the Designated Players through the game session instruction thread.
a. The Commander of Armed Forces is in charge of all military unit actions, including settler escorts, tactical war plans and unit upgrade requests.
b. The Director of Commerce is in charge of contact with foreign nations, including trade, treaties and espionage.
c. The Director of Infrastructure coordinates all worker actions. They also control the slider.
d. The Director of Expansion determines the specific placement of new cities within the scope of all Strategic Council plans. They lead discussions on provincial boundaries, and control all cities without a Governor. They also approve all uses of cash.


Article E. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall be formed of the House of the People and Governors of $COUNTRY_NAME

Section 1. The House of the People
The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and Amendments to the Constitution. The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.

Section 2. The Governors
Governors are responsible for the care, management, use of the cities, and use of lands of a province through the setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers.

Section 3. Mayors
Mayors are appointed by a governor and tasked with the ability to monitor and advise governors for the care, management, and used of the cities. They are limited to the power the governor gives them.

Article F. The Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as counsel for an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Comments:
Obviously, not formatted, but I wanted to get it out here. Positions are directly from DS's proposal. I moved some stuff around slightly on the directors to keep them involved throughout the game. Note the split of slider and cash control - must be that accountant background or something. The Director of Expansion will see an interstest shift in duties as the game goes one - that will be interesting to watch.

-- Ravensfire

Strider
Feb 18, 2005, 03:15 PM
Realistically, it's only the Executive branch that should require "smooshing", and honestly, I just don't see how.

Go with the option that got the most support - DaveShacks' concept.

-- Ravensfire

You can't go with an option that won by one vote, espicially if there were 2 other options discounting those two.

No, we should be re-polling it with just the top two.

MOTH
Feb 18, 2005, 03:20 PM
You can't go with an option that won by one vote, espicially if there were 2 other options discounting those two.

No, we should be re-polling it with just the top two.

I disagree about re-polling with only those two. I would rather see a compromise than stick with the traditional government.

If we are going to re-poll then we should have more of a spectrum vote. I see this conversation as hammering out a compromise to place in the middle of the 2 highest vote getters.

Black_Hole
Feb 18, 2005, 03:24 PM
Proposed Article D, E and F (Exec, Legis and Judic)

Article D.

The Executive Branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the people. It is headed by the President, who is the primary designated player. The President will take direction from a cabinet of leaders and other elected and appointed officials through the game session instruction thread.
1. The President coordinates the activities of the Strategic Council and Tactical Directors.
2. The Strategic Council is responsible for the creation of long-term plans for $COUNTRY_NAME. These leaders do not handle day-to-day activities, but focus on the overall direction of their areas of expertise. These plans are posted once a week in a planning thread, and are updated as needed.
a. The Consul for Domestic Policy establishes goals for city settlement, workforce and fiscal management.
b. The Consul for External Policy establishes goals for our dealings with foreign nations, both peaceful relations and military strategic goals.
c. The Consul for Cultural Policy establishes plans for the cultural growth of $COUNTRY_NAME, including cultural levels, wonders and space ships.
d. The Consul for Resources and Technologies Policy establish research goals and trade parameters.
3. The Tactical Directors implement the plans of the Strategic Council into specific instructions given to the Designated Players through the game session instruction thread.
a. The Commander of Armed Forces is in charge of all military unit actions, including settler escorts, tactical war plans and unit upgrade requests.
b. The Director of Commerce is in charge of contact with foreign nations, including trade, treaties and espionage.
c. The Director of Infrastructure coordinates all worker actions. They also control the slider.
d. The Director of Expansion determines the specific placement of new cities within the scope of all Strategic Council plans. They lead discussions on provincial boundaries, and control all cities without a Governor. They also approve all uses of cash.


Article E. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch shall be formed of the House of the People and Governors of $COUNTRY_NAME

Section 1. The House of the People
The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and Amendments to the Constitution. The House will present all proposed Articles, Amendments and Laws to the Judicial Branch for review.

Section 2. The Governors
Governors are responsible for the care, management, use of the cities, and use of lands of a province through the setting of build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles, population rushes and drafting of citizen soldiers.

Section 3. Mayors
Mayors are appointed by a governor and tasked with the ability to monitor and advise governors for the care, management, and used of the cities. They are limited to the power the governor gives them.

Article F. The Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice, one Public Defender and a Judge Advocate. These three justices are tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws in a fair and impartial manner. The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch. The Public Defender will act as counsel for an accused individual. The Judge Advocate will act as the prosecution.

Comments:
Obviously, not formatted, but I wanted to get it out here. Positions are directly from DS's proposal. I moved some stuff around slightly on the directors to keep them involved throughout the game. Note the split of slider and cash control - must be that accountant background or something. The Director of Expansion will see an interstest shift in duties as the game goes one - that will be interesting to watch.

-- Ravensfire

excellent! the only thing I would do is create a vice president position

mhcarver
Feb 18, 2005, 03:27 PM
somewhat off topic but has there been any discussion about a nation name yet?

Strider
Feb 18, 2005, 03:36 PM
I disagree about re-polling with only those two. I would rather see a compromise than stick with the traditional government.

If we are going to re-poll then we should have more of a spectrum vote. I see this conversation as hammering out a compromise to place in the middle of the 2 highest vote getters.

A "compromise" I would be willing to work our is placing deputies in control of day to day activities, and leaders in control of the long-term affairs. That is, quite possibly, the only compromise I will accept.

I've yet to see any "compromise" that is actually a compromise, every single one I've seen INCLUDES EVERY ASPECT OF THE ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT.

ravensfire
Feb 18, 2005, 04:26 PM
Black_Hole,

I haven't put anything for deputies in there. There are two options I can think of. First, use the traditional approach for deputies, one for each office. The second would be to have a VP, then align a consul and a director, making them deputies for each other.

I'd prefer the first approach.

-- Ravensfire

MOTH
Feb 18, 2005, 04:33 PM
A "compromise" I would be willing to work our is placing deputies in control of day to day activities, and leaders in control of the long-term affairs. That is, quite possibly, the only compromise I will accept.

I've yet to see any "compromise" that is actually a compromise, every single one I've seen INCLUDES EVERY ASPECT OF THE ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT.

I actually mostly agree with you on that point. That was why I was arguing that Provolution's proposal was middle ground. Maybe you missed that proposed compromise.

In any extent, I wouldn't expect to see a compromise put forward to your liking unless you are the one to write it up.

Strider
Feb 18, 2005, 04:39 PM
I actually mostly agree with you on that point. That was why I was arguing that Provolution's proposal was middle ground. Maybe you missed that proposed compromise.

In any extent, I wouldn't expect to see a compromise put forward to your liking unless you are the one to write it up.

Well, I'm not "willing" (or able for that matter) to write a compromise.

I'm not able to write one for two reasons, the first being I have little joy or motivation to do anything with the alternative government (discounting the fact I have know idea how Daveshack wanted it to work). The second is that I just got over two days of being sick, and I've yet to fully gather my wits. Actually, just doing what I am right not is giving me a headache.

Now, I'm not willing for one main reasons. I'm completely against the timing of this proposal. If Daveshack would have proposed it maybe next demogame, then I would have been fine (might have even gave up a few points and supported it). However, we have far to many problems in the demogame as it is, and now is not the time for it. We can experiment with new things when we've got a solid base under us.

Edit: Provolutions I see as a decent compromise, with some modifications I'll be pretty happy.

Ashburnham
Feb 18, 2005, 06:12 PM
However, we have far to many problems in the demogame as it is, and now is not the time for it. We can experiment with new things when we've got a solid base under us.

If there are so many problems with the current Demogame, how will sticking with a traditional form of government fix them? It sounds like we'd just be repeating the mistakes that took place in the last 5 games. We can't fix any problems by using the same old system, we need something new to work with.

I agree that Provolution's proposal was an excellent compromise between the two extreme proposals, but it seems we're only discussing DaveShack's and Strider's now. If that's the case, then we need to implement some of the "alternative" options into our constitution to ensure that we have a system that's not totally dependant on the flaws of past games.

Strider
Feb 18, 2005, 06:34 PM
If there are so many problems with the current Demogame, how will sticking with a traditional form of government fix them? It sounds like we'd just be repeating the mistakes that took place in the last 5 games. We can't fix any problems by using the same old system, we need something new to work with.

Why? Because the problems I am thinking of is not problems with the rules, but problems with our citizens, leaders, etc.

We need to concentrate on ending the fights, bringing in more citizens, organizing the demogame better, and many other things that have nothing to do with the system.

Octavian X
Feb 19, 2005, 11:50 AM
ravensfire has an well-written bit that deals with all the controversial aspects of the game that have been fought over for so long, and there is some concensus that it's a better plan. Additionally, I've only noticed Strider strenously opposing the proposals. This is as close to majority rule as we'll get.

Since our March deadline is obviously approaching, why don't we start off the game with ravenfire's rules? It'll be a test month - the new government strucutre should be given a chance to stand on it's own feet. At the end of March, we can have a final referendum on this subject, on traditional vs. alternative, which is when we'll also hopefully have greater participation coinciding with the beginning of the game.

It's unfair to make a decision on goverment strucutre, anyhow, for two big reasons - the alternate government hasn't been given a test run (which it, in all due fairness, deserves). An actual demonstration will allow us to test the merits of the new system, for comparison to the old one. Proponents and opponents can conclusively point to weaknesses in the system, and we'll be able to have a better debate.

Aslo, because we haven't got a full compleament of players paying attention at present, as many, myself included, tend to tune these debates out.

DaveShack
Feb 19, 2005, 01:12 PM
Why? Because the problems I am thinking of is not problems with the rules, but problems with our citizens, leaders, etc.

We need to concentrate on ending the fights, bringing in more citizens, organizing the demogame better, and many other things that have nothing to do with the system.

I think it is good for us to have meaningful conversations on disagreements, so what you're referring to for ending fights must be the personal stuff. That is easy to fix, and looks like it will be fixed, by our friends the mods.

On attracting citizens, why do you suppose the marketing industry is so much in love with the word new? Compare these statements:

Come join the demogame -- same thing as the last 5 but we promise it will be fun
NEW! Be one of the first to try the new demogame! New civ version, new organization, and new players like yourself!


On organizing the demogame better, I'm aiming for better organized information, discussions with a purpose, and a decision making flow instead of 100's of ad-hoc decisions made without a framework.

Chieftess
Feb 19, 2005, 02:01 PM
Let's put up 2 acceptance polls (the first being linked to the second).

1 - "Do you approve of Daveshack's government branch amendments?"
yes/no

2 - "How should we go about the 2 rulesets?"

Daveshack's and Strider's plan for 1 month then vote on who's is best
Use Daveshack's plan
Use Strider's plan.

Black_Hole
Feb 19, 2005, 02:16 PM
Im not for changing the government mid game. Lets just get working on your game long government.

Chieftess
Feb 19, 2005, 02:42 PM
Well, we already polled this thing once, and got nowhere. How about this comprimise then?

DG6 - we use X ruleset.
DG7 - we use Y ruleset.

Black_Hole
Feb 19, 2005, 03:39 PM
Well, we already polled this thing once, and got nowhere. How about this comprimise then?

DG6 - we use X ruleset.
DG7 - we use Y ruleset.
sorta the idea, how bout this:
DG6 - we use alternate government
DG7 - we vote between alterante government and traditional

so if this thing doesnt work then we will only use it for 1 DG

Strider
Feb 19, 2005, 06:51 PM
sorta the idea, how bout this:
DG6 - we use alternate government
DG7 - we vote between alterante government and traditional

so if this thing doesnt work then we will only use it for 1 DG

Nice compromise.... bad chance of that ever happening. I'll make certain of that.

Strider
Feb 19, 2005, 06:52 PM
I think it is good for us to have meaningful conversations on disagreements, so what you're referring to for ending fights must be the personal stuff. That is easy to fix, and looks like it will be fixed, by our friends the mods.

On attracting citizens, why do you suppose the marketing industry is so much in love with the word new? Compare these statements:

Come join the demogame -- same thing as the last 5 but we promise it will be fun
NEW! Be one of the first to try the new demogame! New civ version, new organization, and new players like yourself!


On organizing the demogame better, I'm aiming for better organized information, discussions with a purpose, and a decision making flow instead of 100's of ad-hoc decisions made without a framework.

New players will not be interested in the rules, just the game. (and by organization, I meant the "Discussion Registry etc." things... basicly department and forum organization.)

Nobody
Feb 19, 2005, 07:20 PM
sorta the idea, how bout this:
DG6 - we use alternate government
DG7 - we vote between alterante government and traditional

so if this thing doesnt work then we will only use it for 1 DG

We could play this demogame on a tiny map, and accelerated production, so its a fast game then we can vote what is the better goverment. then we can have a normal big demogame after that. of course we would use the "alt-ter-native" rules for the fast one.

Ashburnham
Feb 19, 2005, 07:50 PM
Nice compromise.... bad chance of that ever happening. I'll make certain of that.

Strider, you're really not helping. While others are trying to find some way to get this game started by March 1, you seem content to sit back and cry out how everybody's wrong but you.

Nomination threads are scheduled to open in 3 days. We need to figure out how we're going to run this game. You can sit there, whine, and sulk; or you can be constructive and help establish the structure of the next Demogame.

Ashburnham
Feb 19, 2005, 07:54 PM
Im not for changing the government mid game. Lets just get working on your game long government.

I think we may have to use the first Term as a "testing ground" for what government we want to use. Remember, DaveShack's proposal has yet to prove itself in an actual game.

I suggest we use DaveShack's proposal, in its pure form, for the first Term. Luckily, not much happens when we have one city and maybe a warrior, so we can focus on how the government runs. As we watch the progress of the game, we can decide how we should structure the government for the rest of the game: whether we use DaveShack's government, a traditional government, or a hybrid of the two. As for now, I'm afraid it's too late to hammer out some sort of compromise before March 1.

Black_Hole
Feb 19, 2005, 08:20 PM
We should vote whether to keep alternate or go traditional half way through 1st term,
and strider i really appreciate your great help here...

Black_Hole
Feb 19, 2005, 09:58 PM
I think we may have to use the first Term as a "testing ground" for what government we want to use. Remember, DaveShack's proposal has yet to prove itself in an actual game.

I suggest we use DaveShack's proposal, in its pure form, for the first Term. Luckily, not much happens when we have one city and maybe a warrior, so we can focus on how the government runs. As we watch the progress of the game, we can decide how we should structure the government for the rest of the game: whether we use DaveShack's government, a traditional government, or a hybrid of the two. As for now, I'm afraid it's too late to hammer out some sort of compromise before March 1.
im afraid its gonna be hard to get any constitution made before march 1st
Times a ticken
about 1 day 20 hours till nominations will start (GMT time)
heck, february is 2 days short, so technically if we were going from days from the end of teh month(that option won), we should be starting nominations in 20 hours...

Strider
Feb 19, 2005, 10:13 PM
Strider, you're really not helping. While others are trying to find some way to get this game started by March 1, you seem content to sit back and cry out how everybody's wrong but you.

Nomination threads are scheduled to open in 3 days. We need to figure out how we're going to run this game. You can sit there, whine, and sulk; or you can be constructive and help establish the structure of the next Demogame.

We should vote whether to keep alternate or go traditional half way through 1st term,
and strider i really appreciate your great help here...

Both of you are doing what? Making half-ass suggestions and "compromises" so unfair that I have no other choice than to tell you "hell no?" The only thing I've seen from either of you is complaints about the start date or how we need to figure something out.

How about for once one of you be constructive, sense you seem so intent to get me to do it. I've done my share of work with the tradational government, also likely introduced a few articles that will be used inside of the next game.

No, this is where I draw the line. From now on, you can keep your compromises, because I'm not going to even bother wasting my time on another half-assed suggestion. From now on, no more cooperation or help from me, unless it has something to do with the tradational government in it's true form.

Chieftess
Feb 19, 2005, 10:16 PM
This is the kind of thing that could potentially be argued on for months, and STILL not get hammered out. In fact, this very idea's been floating around for months. From the looks of things, there isn't even much discussion on the issue. The constitution is supposed to be by the people, but instead it's being decided by a few people. Because we can't seem to get anything going on this (and it's been 3 days -- it's reached the limit), this is what I'm going to do:



We will use the Alternate Government on a trial basis for 2 terms to see how it works, then we'll switch over to the traditional government for the duration of the game. If we like the alternate government, then we can use that as a basis for future games. I think the reason there's so much angst is that it's a change from what the demogame was designed for. We'll use the first 2 months as an experiment phase. Think of it as different government forms in Civ3. The rest of the constitution can remain the same. The only difference is a few offices between the 2 choices.


I know there will be those who hate this decision, but there'll be those who hate going one way or the other, or no decision at all. The fact is that we can't go on for months debating what roles people should take, and spend more time debating than playing the actual game. It's like debating something that you aren't even going to get to do. So, we'll go ahead with 2 months of Daveshack's plan, then Strider's plan for the government, then we can vote on which ones we like.

Now, let's start voting on the other amendments to the constitution.

Black_Hole
Feb 19, 2005, 10:17 PM
strider I really think it would be better if you cooperate, really what would be better an alternate governemnt? or no government? owell we have 20 or 44 hours, doesnt matter anymore... Its overtime

Black_Hole
Feb 19, 2005, 10:21 PM
CT, you have really passed your moderator rights. I could have sworn this would happen, and it did. I thought we played a democracy game, I can somewhat live with the timelimit, but thiis is WAY too much. We cant have one person make our constitution!!!! the 'd' in DG should stand for dictator now.
Now you are going to want to ban me, but heh I said this as nice as I could.

Chieftess
Feb 19, 2005, 10:32 PM
The reason I did this is because nothing is getting done. I've put up discussions, and even discussions to finalize the constitution, but they're left with 2-4 day gaps of no discussion what-so-ever. From DG1 to this one, the discussion time has gotten longer and longer, and there comes a time when too much discussion is too long. This was already polled atleast once. Think of this as arbitration. Maybe next demogame we should just vote on one of the previous demogame constitutions to use just to save us the trouble of months of debate. Starting with DG3-DG4, discussion time grew to 2 months, 2 1/2 months. Do you really want to spend up to 4 months debating how you should play for the next 4 months? The demogame was based around discussions, polls and ingame actions of a civ game. The origanal designers of the demogame never intended for there to be months worth of discussions. In fact, discussion on the constitution was even done during the game itself in DG1 and 2. I'm doing you a favor by atleast giving you a choice. I could have just gone with the old style president, VP, and advisors. There are plenty of those who would like to get the game started, and I think the lack of discussion is a testiment to the debate fatigue of designing the constitution. It's something that's done every game, and people get tired of it, but the game has to move on. Don't blame me for your troubles -- I gave you 2 full months to make a ruleset, I gave plenty of discussion and polls. You had plenty of chances to voice your opinion and help construct a constitution. (by you, I'm talking about everyone). I'm not about to let the demogame die because a vocal few doesn't like what everyone else thinks.

Donovan Zoi
Feb 20, 2005, 02:07 AM
I'm not about to let the demogame die because a vocal few doesn't like what everyone else thinks.

Ironic statement there. :lol: This is usually the point where I would self-righteously excuse myself from this game for good, but I think I'm gonna stick around and see how this whole pathetic scene shakes out.

Black_Hole, you have proven yourself worthy to carry the torch for me on this topic. I think everyone at CFC knows what I would say here, and quite frankly, I am tired of repeating myself.

Donovan Zoi
Feb 20, 2005, 02:13 AM
Also, is there any plan to move to a new forum? I don't want to call too much attention to misplaced efforts, as I see how easy it is to remove the vocal opposition. :groucho:

When are we going to get a clue????? :confused:

YNCS
Feb 20, 2005, 07:17 AM
When are we going to get a clue????? :confused:
Hopefully, by the end of the first term. :wallbash:

Black_Hole
Feb 20, 2005, 07:22 AM
The origanal designers of the demogame never intended for there to be months worth of discussions.
i am also not shur the founder believed in one person choosing the democracy game government. CT, you could have posted a simple poll!!

Beyond that CT, shouldnt we have a cool down period in between games?

I gave you 2 full months to make a ruleset, I gave plenty of discussion and polls.
You gave us? So its not our right to discuss the ruleset and vote on it before the game? The discusssions and polls you gave were pathetic. The discusssions had 2 sentences at the top and they were used to decide on lots of issues. The polls you gave us were multiple choice and squished together 6 different decisions

You didn't give us anything, it was just taken away.

I'm not about to let the demogame die because a vocal few doesn't like what everyone else thinks.
First off change "demo" to "dictator"
And do you honestly believe the dictator game would have died if we waited another month, to finish what we started?

This will completely confuse the noobs...
Plus, CT if you are really going all out to get this game started by March 1st, you should have the forums up soon...

You have completely taken away my want to play, I think Ill just sit on the sidelines with DZ

edit: CT, a question, did you get permission from the other mods to decide on our most important government issue? or did you just decide by yourself?

Chieftess
Feb 20, 2005, 08:29 AM
Yes, I'm working on the new forum right now. And with your attitude, how about I just let this game sink into more beuracracy? I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy to argue and debate months on end while everyone begins to lose interest. :rolleyes:

Black_Hole
Feb 20, 2005, 08:32 AM
Yes, I'm working on the new forum right now. And with your attitude, how about I just let this game sink into more beuracracy? I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy to argue and debate months on end while everyone begins to lose interest. :rolleyes:
all i would have wanted was another 15 days, we cant complete the constitution on time, so its not worth it to me trying
also CT beuracracy is when there is an overpowering, complicated, non citizen involved government, it looks like someone deciding the democracy for everyone

could you also answer this question CT:
edit: CT, a question, did you get permission from the other mods to decide on our most important government issue? or did you just decide by yourself?

MOTH
Feb 20, 2005, 09:07 AM
I applaud Chieftess's decision here. The bickering and filibustering was going to continue forever. An executive decision needed to be made to keep things going. In my opinion this is much better than issuing bans based on the info in the posts. There was no constructive discussion going on. She is merely moving forward a proposal already supported by a poll with a plurality.

Black_Hole,
I suggest that you take your question up via PM (whether to CT or the other mods). You are questioning, discussing, and arguing about a moderator action. This is clearly not allowed according to the forum rules. Technically, I guess I am breaking that rule a bit here too...

Chieftess
Feb 20, 2005, 09:18 AM
Look back at DG1 and 2. We dicussed and voted on the constitution as the game was moving along. The important stuff like government positions, nomination cycle, and discussions/polls were up. This is why they call new articles amendments, because you can amend the constitution as you play. Take a look at real life - the US is still amending the constitution. The fact is, there are several vocal groups here who want things their way. In the past, this led to bickering, and fighting. This thread was supposed to be for a compremise. There was no real action on a compremise, but only more bickering. This is the very thing that drives some people away. If you really want to argue over rulesets, go find the Model Parliament forum. Besides, if we keep arguing too long, then before we know it, Civ4 will be right around the corner, and there'll be some arguing that we should move there. I'm not about to let that happen.

Black_Hole
Feb 20, 2005, 09:30 AM
I applaud Chieftess's decision here. The bickering and filibustering was going to continue forever. An executive decision needed to be made to keep things going. In my opinion this is much better than issuing bans based on the info in the posts. There was no constructive discussion going on. She is merely moving forward a proposal already supported by a poll with a plurality.

Black_Hole,
I suggest that you take your question up via PM (whether to CT or the other mods). You are questioning, discussing, and arguing about a moderator action. This is clearly not allowed according to the forum rules. Technically, I guess I am breaking that rule a bit here too...
I know the rules...
Even though it is against the rules for me to discuss a moderator action, there is no rule letting CT choose decisions in a democracygame

she isnt moving forward what was voted for, we voted for this game to be an alternate government, chieftess chooses only 2 terms will be alternate government. we should have a poll after 2 terms if we want to continue, i wouldnt mind if she was just enforcing the plurarily of the poll, but she defined it her way and used a [mod2] tag to enforece it

the orginial reason moderators were put in charge of forums, was to enforce forum rules, not enforce democracygame rules, not choose decisions that should require a poll

Chieftess
Feb 20, 2005, 09:42 AM
In any game, you have referees. Moderators are like referees. This bickering and filibustering constitutes a "delay of game". Moderators are here to help everyone, not to please a certain group of people.

Donovan Zoi
Feb 20, 2005, 09:51 AM
I applaud Chieftess's decision here. The bickering and filibustering was going to continue forever. An executive decision needed to be made to keep things going. In my opinion this is much better than issuing bans based on the info in the posts. There was no constructive discussion going on. She is merely moving forward a proposal already supported by a poll with a plurality.

Black_Hole,
I suggest that you take your question up via PM (whether to CT or the other mods). You are questioning, discussing, and arguing about a moderator action. This is clearly not allowed according to the forum rules. Technically, I guess I am breaking that rule a bit here too...

I am shocked and appalled that you would gladly hand the very Constitution of our government over to the moderators. As a former DG mod myself, I only put myself above the game at one time and that was to try to correct an error in my own judgment. You will see no such action here.

If people are too lazy to throw together a ruleset, then maybe this game really isn't worth playing. Civ 4 isn't that far off, and maybe we can have our stuff together by that point. The way it's currently going, I suggest we move this debacle to the Succession Games forum. I think CT runs that one as well, so it should be a smooth transition. ;)

Donovan Zoi
Feb 20, 2005, 09:57 AM
In any game, you have referees. Moderators are like referees. This bickering and filibustering constitutes a "delay of game". Moderators are here to help everyone, not to please a certain group of people.

A referee does not put themselves above the game they are "watching", CT. The fact that you do not get this is why a "certain group of people" will always be vigilant of your actions for as long as you continue to ignore this most basic of principles. You are really helping no one.

Nice football references though. Tell you what --- can we take the 10 yard penalty instand of handing you our Constitution on a platter?

Strider
Feb 20, 2005, 10:06 AM
This is the kind of thing that could potentially be argued on for months, and STILL not get hammered out. In fact, this very idea's been floating around for months. From the looks of things, there isn't even much discussion on the issue. The constitution is supposed to be by the people, but instead it's being decided by a few people. Because we can't seem to get anything going on this (and it's been 3 days -- it's reached the limit), this is what I'm going to do:

Moderator Action:

We will use the Alternate Government on a trial basis for 2 terms to see how it works, then we'll switch over to the traditional government for the duration of the game. If we like the alternate government, then we can use that as a basis for future games. I think the reason there's so much angst is that it's a change from what the demogame was designed for. We'll use the first 2 months as an experiment phase. Think of it as different government forms in Civ3. The rest of the constitution can remain the same. The only difference is a few offices between the 2 choices.


I know there will be those who hate this decision, but there'll be those who hate going one way or the other, or no decision at all. The fact is that we can't go on for months debating what roles people should take, and spend more time debating than playing the actual game. It's like debating something that you aren't even going to get to do. So, we'll go ahead with 2 months of Daveshack's plan, then Strider's plan for the government, then we can vote on which ones we like.

Now, let's start voting on the other amendments to the constitution.

CT... you just made a bad situtation worst. People don't react very kindly to being froced to do anything, and even more so when it contains something they don't like. With the way it is right now, we are going to be fighting over our laws the first two terms, rather than actually playing the game. You will achieve nothing, but the opposite of what you wanted by doing this. Please, take this decision back.

i am also not shur the founder believed in one person choosing the democracy game government. CT, you could have posted a simple poll!!

Beyond that CT, shouldnt we have a cool down period in between games?

This is so pathic and mis-informed that it actually made me laugh. Incase you forgot CT was a founder of the Civ3 Demogame. She was there when the game was created, your doing nothing else but proving me correct. You are useless, complaining instead of taking action.

-------------------

It is as simple as this, we need another month to make the rules. Starting the game when the rules are not complete will do nothing more than taking the fighting into the game itself. Instead of discussing where to place our next settler, we will still be fighting over the rules. There is nothing you can do about it CT, short of banning every single person inside of the demogame, the only reasonable and logical choice is to give us another month. Either that or were likely to take that month wether you like it or not.

If we do get another month, we need to use it instead of waste our time on pointless discussions and half-assed compromises. Screw the damn timetables, they do nothing but waste our time making them. There seems to be no clear leader organizing anything this time, and that is where all of our confusion is stemming from.

Expect a poll over which constitution we should us shortly after this post.

Black_Hole
Feb 20, 2005, 10:09 AM
CT... you just made a bad situtation worst. People don't react very kindly to being froced to do anything, and even more so when it contains something they don't like. With the way it is right now, we are going to be fighting over our laws the first two terms, rather than actually playing the game. You will achieve nothing, but the opposite of what you wanted by doing this. Please, take this decision back.



This is so pathic and mis-informed that it actually made me laugh. Incase you forgot CT was a founder of the Civ3 Demogame. She was there when the game was created, your doing nothing else but proving me correct. You are useless, complaining instead of taking action.

-------------------

It is as simple as this, we need another month to make the rules. Starting the game when the rules are not complete will do nothing more than taking the fighting into the game itself. Instead of discussing where to place our next settler, we will still be fighting over the rules. There is nothing you can do about it CT, short of banning every single person inside of the demogame, the only reasonable and logical choice is to give us another month. Either that or were likely to take that month wether you like it or not.

If we do get another month, we need to use it instead of waste our time on pointless discussions and half-assed compromises. Screw the damn timetables, they do nothing but waste our time making them. There seems to be no clear leader organizing anything this time, and that is where all of our confusion is stemming from.

Expect a poll over which constitution we should us shortly after this post.

sorry, i didnt know CT created the demogame by herself

Ashburnham
Feb 20, 2005, 10:33 AM
I, for one, applaud CT's decision. For too long has the Game of Democracy been bogged down in things like "discussion" and "opinions". What we need is a strong hand to lead us; and Chieftess is that hand. I look forward to seeing what civilization the moderators choose for us to play, seeing moderator-appointed Ministers and Justices, and watching moderator-run Turnchats. Truly, this is a brave new era for the Demogame.

And here I was, worried that we'd have to come to a decision ourselves. How silly of me.

Black_Hole
Feb 20, 2005, 11:02 AM
I, for one, applaud CT's decision. For too long has the Game of Democracy been bogged down in things like "discussion" and "opinions". What we need is a strong hand to lead us; and Chieftess is that hand. I look forward to seeing what civilization the moderators choose for us to play, seeing moderator-appointed Ministers and Justices, and watching moderator-run Turnchats. Truly, this is a brave new era for the Demogame.

And here I was, worried that we'd have to come to a decision ourselves. How silly of me.
:lol: :lol: Thats the best thing I have read for weeks :goodjob:

Chieftess
Feb 20, 2005, 11:09 AM
Ok, look, Strider put up a poll. If that poll isn't decisive by the nominations (atleast the 23rd), then we'll have to pick something.

YNCS
Feb 20, 2005, 11:21 AM
Children, play nice.

Bill_in_PDX
Feb 21, 2005, 03:33 PM
I was reading through the two main proposals by DaveShack and Strider. You both put great effort into this and I appreciate it. I will say that I am generally opposed to rule sets that force the President to be dictated to by the cabinet. I think if it comes down to disagreement, then the President should have the ability to resolve the issue, and not have his/her leadership undermined.

But to the bigger picture, I was around right at the beginning of DG1. Back then we had equally detailed discussions about rules, and one of our great early leaders set about writing an incredibly detailed rule set. There were long debates about very mundane things (and lest you think I am throwing stones, trust me when I say I myself was kneedeep in rule discussions for much of my DG experience). Yet, despite all that work, there was always a loop hole, always a new PI on the horizon, and as game after game passed, animosity from the past seemed to influence decisions of the present.

I am not the arbiter of this, but I do feel the original intend of the demogame was to set up a fun environment where folks could group play a game together via a forum, debating and discussing strategies of the game. Over time many folks joined who were very interested in the debate of the government structure itself as well, and in effect there were two games going at once (and in some cases three, as DG2 had a huge RPG game in progress, that sometimes dwarfed the actual game in progress).

So what does all of this rambling mean? Basically we need to decide if we are playing this game to play CivIII together in a controlled environment, or are we more interested in the rule aspects of setting up a government. Yes, you can do a little of both, but one has to have priority over the other. Having been myself a rule chaser in the past, I would recommend getting back to enjoying a game of Civ together, though I certainly understand and respect those that disagree.

YNCS
Feb 21, 2005, 04:03 PM
Basically we need to decide if we are playing this game to play CivIII together in a controlled environment, or are we more interested in the rule aspects of setting up a government. Yes, you can do a little of both, but one has to have priority over the other. Having been myself a rule chaser in the past, I would recommend getting back to enjoying a game of Civ together, though I certainly understand and respect those that disagree.
I realize that most of the people here have been interacting with each other for at least one DG, if not longer. I also understand that there are animosities going back at least as long.

Quite frankly, I just want to play CIV with a group of other people. I don't really care about the minutiŠ of the government, although as a bureaucrat in RL I know that without rules any organization larger than one person will ultimately fail. I'm willing to put up with the bureaucratic wrangling in order to play CIV this way, but it's not the important thing. Playing the game is the important thing!

Provolution
Feb 21, 2005, 04:42 PM
The problem,even if you bury the hatchet, the same posse of wannabee Nemesis players will hound you and bark at you habitually. Why so? The personal projection of past memories serves as a natural target, and if a personal cognitive platform is not capable of constructive thinking, all what is left is the primal hunting instincts.

Does it help to evade the past? No I do not think so.

YNCS
Feb 21, 2005, 05:00 PM
I understand that. :twitch:

Black_Hole
Feb 21, 2005, 05:29 PM
I understand that. :twitch:
he has a very creative way of speaking

Provolution
Feb 21, 2005, 05:31 PM
indeed .......

YNCS
Feb 21, 2005, 05:46 PM
There's a parable about two Buddhist monks that comes to mind.

Two monks came to a river. A beautiful courtesan, waiting at the river bank, asked them if they would carry her across. Without a word, the older monk squatted down in front of her, she climbed on his back, he carried her across the river, then set her down on the other side and still without a word, continued his journey. The younger monk was shocked that the other monk would have anything to do with any woman, let alone a whore. This monk thought about it for two hours then he couldn't contain his anger any more. "Why did you carry that sinful woman across the river?" The older monk replied: "I put that woman down two hours ago, why are you still carrying her?"

Do I have to explain this parable to anyone?

Provolution
Feb 21, 2005, 06:01 PM
Please explain that nice parable of yours :)

YNCS
Feb 21, 2005, 06:08 PM
Several people here are carrying around grudges from the past. For instance, Provo, it seems that every time Black Heart posts anything, you accuse him of sabotaging your polls. Personally, I don't see the sabotage. Is your ego that great that you have to clutch to your bosom something that apparently had its origin in a previous game?

Strider
Feb 21, 2005, 06:13 PM
Please explain that nice parable of yours :)

THe "older" monk asking the younger one "Why are you still carrying her" at first sounds like the younger monk is taking the whore with them. However, it is meant to mean "Why are you still angry about it."

To summarize it, it's asking why your still angry about something that happened a long time ago.

Provolution
Feb 21, 2005, 06:17 PM
Yeah, no wonder there are wars around. I have just posted the moderators to clean up my Newspaper before I made my first article (The Purgatory).

EDIT, the unopened thread was closed due to 4-5 threadjacks. Now, a new thread with sufficient coverage has been re-opened.

Bill_in_PDX
Feb 21, 2005, 11:45 PM
The problem,even if you bury the hatchet, the same posse of wannabee Nemesis players will hound you and bark at you habitually. Why so? The personal projection of past memories serves as a natural target, and if a personal cognitive platform is not capable of constructive thinking, all what is left is the primal hunting instincts.

Does it help to evade the past? No I do not think so.

Since you qouted me in this response, please allow me to retort.

Your language is sufficiently flowerly to indicate many things, but one thing I did not claim, and as such, your post is a strawman argument of the highest order, is that we should forget the past.

Hardly.

I am suggesting we remember the past, and decide what the game is about. Is it about playing CIV? Or is it about debating rules?

I can see both sides, and I have been on both sides. I'd recommend focusing on playing a game of Civ.

Provolution
Feb 21, 2005, 11:54 PM
Actually, YNCS was the one citing you. Yet, I thank you for your response, and I agree, it is the Civgame that matters PLUS the color and entertainment of the game.
If we had enough good legalists or legally interested people, this might work as a mock government and rule game. However, with heavy politization of the application of rules and hardly any equality to the law, as well as very unbalanced rhetorical and legal interpretation skills in legal trials, we better stick to playing the game.

Yet, some rules are needed, and I am glad we get some long term thinking in our organization. I think DSes model could be used as a base for amendments if needed.

Bill_in_PDX
Feb 21, 2005, 11:59 PM
Ahh, you are indeed right Provolution. My bad.

DaveShack
Feb 22, 2005, 02:26 AM
Bill, thank you very much for your insight.

I too have been on both sides of the debate between using the democracy as a vehicle for playing civ, vs. using civ as the vehicle for playing at democracy. I have seen people use weak rules as a means of making a point about the culture of the game by challenging old assumptions, and others use strong rules to try to get back at their old nemesis from several games ago.

Players come and go, but in the end the game remains the same. :)

Provolution
Feb 22, 2005, 05:40 AM
YNCS

Actually, Blackhole (Not Blackheart) has done that to every single gameworld poll I posted to collect information early February, every single one. Then he sought to capsize the compromise poll by making as many as possible people voting Abstain, as well as badmouthing the poll as number one. I have a different story with Blackheart, but he follows a totally different pattern. So YNCS, this is only a couple of several dozens of unnecessary conflicts. I could of course forget it, but will they?

Black_Hole
Feb 22, 2005, 08:48 AM
Provo this is just your habit of putting down anyone that disagrees with you or one of your polls. Not everyone can agree always

Provolution
Feb 22, 2005, 12:06 PM
Fair enough, as long as you do not post in the newspaper till its done.

YNCS
Feb 22, 2005, 04:23 PM
Actually, Blackhole (Not Blackheart) has done that to every single gameworld poll I posted to collect information early February, every single one.
My apologies to Black Heart and Black Hole for confusing one for the other.
So YNCS, this is only a couple of several dozens of unnecessary conflicts. I could of course forget it, but will they?
You could forget, but you make it abundantly obvious that you not only won't forget, but you'd prefer not to forget.

Never mind, this is a waste of effort on my part. Please forget that I even brought up the silly idea that playing the game was more important than continuing old feuds.

Provolution
Feb 22, 2005, 11:56 PM
YNCS

Well, I stay out of harms way as much as I can, but I certainly will pin down repetition of certain transgressions, so please consider me a watchdog for gross misconduct. As you see, I do not threadjack other peoples threads, and I do not roast people. In fact, I am quite docile and easy-going, for the time being.

Again, decent people that disagree with me send PMs, like MOTH and Cyc, when we disagree, thus, I have not had conflicts with several strong profiles for ages.
Others, do not answer PMs or evade straight answers, so the forums remains.

Sarevok
Feb 26, 2005, 02:13 AM
A nice and traditional setup... I like it.