View Full Version : Government Style Poll #2


Alphawolf
Dec 18, 2005, 12:39 PM
Since DaveShack is away, I'll put out the Poll. This is a runoff for Triumvirate or Flexible government. This is an open poll and closes in two days.

Triumvirate v5.2 is HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148180)
The Triumvirate has been updated to v5.2.

Flexible is HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948)

-the Wolf

I am the Future
Dec 18, 2005, 01:44 PM
Party Members I Urge You As Big Brother To Vote Flexible, Again.

greekguy
Dec 18, 2005, 04:04 PM
As a citizen of no party affiliation, I urge all citizens to vote for Flexible Government style.

Pie-es-Tasty
Dec 18, 2005, 04:53 PM
As a citizen of no affiliation, I'm really confused. I can't tell what the merits of one government type over the other are. Triumvirate seems very complete and well written, while Flexible is just Triumvirate with some stuff changed, which makes me inclined to vote for Triumvirate. However, many people seem to favor Flexible. Can anyone tell me why they think one is better than the other?

Alphawolf
Dec 18, 2005, 05:09 PM
Thank you I spent a lot of time on the Triumvirate. They are about 90% similar the only main difference is in Flexible the people in charge can appoint more people and all the offices are equal, in the Triumvirate some offices are higher than others. As for the blatant stealing by DaveShack, he didn't have time to type everything out so he used cut and paste.

-the Wolf

Slim_Chance
Dec 18, 2005, 05:27 PM
As a citizen of no affiliation, I'm really confused. I can't tell what the merits of one government type over the other are. Triumvirate seems very complete and well written, while Flexible is just Triumvirate with some stuff changed, which makes me inclined to vote for Triumvirate. However, many people seem to favor Flexible. Can anyone tell me why they think one is better than the other?

I don't like the ability to appoint many people that the flexible does so I voted for Triumvirate.

I am the Future
Dec 18, 2005, 05:31 PM
I voted flexible and encurage you to do the same, because it allows for simpilair election processes and makes sure that every position has a job unlike in the tri. where somone might be elected to a post that wont be useful till the 250th turn.

Nobody
Dec 18, 2005, 05:39 PM
you might think Triumvirate is allot better than flexiable because it is longer, but really the flexiable is the Triumvirate with the bad bits removed.

I am the Future
Dec 18, 2005, 05:47 PM
I voted flexible and encurage you to do the same, because it allows for simpilair election processes and makes sure that every position has a job unlike in the tri. where somone might be elected to a post that wont be useful till the 250th turn.

Pie-es-Tasty
Dec 18, 2005, 07:15 PM
...unlike in the tri. where somone might be elected to a post that wont be useful till the 250th turn.

Can you give me an example of such an office?

Alphawolf
Dec 18, 2005, 08:53 PM
Can you give me an example of such an office?

I believe he is referring to the Director of Intelligence, but it is appointed not elected.

-the Wolf

Tboy
Dec 19, 2005, 04:06 AM
Despite my memberships to parties, I urge all members to vote for the FLEXIBLE government type, as it will allow maximum effieciency and fairness, leading to the best possible nation.

Man'O'Action
Dec 19, 2005, 08:15 AM
I would ask that my friends and foes alike vote for the tried and true Triumvirate government.

Swissempire
Dec 19, 2005, 08:51 AM
not to be rude or anything Tboy, but how?

ravensfire
Dec 19, 2005, 09:08 AM
If you want a complicated, rules driven government that's difficult to follow, vote Triumverate.

If you want a simpler government, with the focus on citizen participation and decision-making, vote Flexible.

It's that simple, folks.

-- Ravensfire

Tboy
Dec 19, 2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Swissempire
not to be rude or anything Tboy, but how?

Not rude at alll Swiisempire, its a fair point.
Effieciency: stops the strenuous and unnecessary process of appointing people like ambassador to the UN in 3000BC, or other comletely useless positions.
Fairness: Ensures that no-one is stuck in a useless, dead end position which makes them unable to hold another office.

Swissempire
Dec 19, 2005, 11:46 AM
Ravensfire: The tri allows more citizien liberties, and a more defined decson making process so people who have more experience don't attempt to take advantage of confused new citziens. :mad: "I hope no one would ever do that by posting slanted untruthful things at 12:08 PM on Dec 19th"( italizesd things are repectufully retratced):crazyeye: :eek:

Tboy: While those are valid points, I can't find the ambassador position anywhere, but i would gladly take the post:lol:
There is also a clause that allows people to hold up to 2 postions, so no one gets stuck! Also in the Triumvirate citziens assembly, every citzien is a senator! Yay

I am the Future: If the person is cretive enough, the Director of intellgiences could use scouts, open border negitionions and other means of gathering and documenting intelligence. I had more ideas but the thought police wiped my mind for being right:scan:

ravensfire
Dec 19, 2005, 12:04 PM
Swissempire,

Kindly retract your remarks. I state my opinion simply and clearly as others do. To paraphrase your comment, I cannot believe that one would post slanted, harmful posts towards the opinion of another.

I stand by my remarks. The Triumverate is a complicated ruleset with significant issues. The rights of citizens from games past are significantly reduced. The rules for the government are quite rigid.

The Flexible government has few of those problems, and represents, to my opinion, a much better option for CIV DGI to be based on.

-- Ravensfire

Pie-es-Tasty
Dec 19, 2005, 12:19 PM
To ravesfire:
What kinds of issues do you see in the Triumvirate government? And what rights have been reduced from previous Demogames?

To swissempire:
What are the citizen's liberties that the Triumvirate government allows over the Flexible government type?

I ask these questions because it seems to me that people are giving arguments without evidence. It would be nice to see examples of people's points.

ravensfire
Dec 19, 2005, 01:15 PM
Pie-es Tasty,

Here's a link to the Triumverate discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=148180), you'll find my comments on some issues there.

I'll try to work up comparison by tonight.

-- Ravensfire

vikingruler
Dec 19, 2005, 03:35 PM
I have misclicked on Abstain when I meant to vote flexible. Could a mod plese change my vote. thank you.

Swissempire
Dec 19, 2005, 04:22 PM
Here is the evidence of my arguement.
On the libeties part

Only the Citizens Assembly may decide five things: Declare War/Make Peace/Alliance, to change civics, to begin construction on a Great Wonder/National Wonder/Project, a change in Taxes (the science/treasury/culture meter) greater that 30% more than once every 5 turns, and where to build new cities.

Also The Citizens Assembly may bring a no confidence vote against the Triumvirate and impeach members of the Cabinet

Bolded are the additional liberties granted to the citiziens of the triumvirate! The changing of state religion falls under the civics.

The flexible takes away even more liberties with this clause
The Governors Council may veto the actions requiring a vote of the Citizens Assembly with a 6/10 (60%) majority vote of the council

I rest my case. If i overlooked something i did not Knowingly do so

Swissempire
Dec 19, 2005, 04:34 PM
The Triumverate is a complicated ruleset with significant issues. The rights of citizens from games past are significantly reduced. The rules for the government are quite rigid.

I don't understand what your getting at here. I don't see how the rights are reduced, and for the rigiditiy of the rules, the Flexible government only subtracts the rules about mobilization, and that isn't that complicated. The other crossed out lines pertain to offices that the flexible disregards(losing jobs) and things pertaining to cross-ed out jobs, the mobalization, and liberties.
agian i challenge you to back up your statements

DaveShack
Dec 19, 2005, 04:44 PM
At present it's still a coin flip for me. The Triumvirate has moved a long way towards "normal" and that work deserves to be recognized, but philosophically I don't like offices that are set apart. I learned a lesson on that in DG6.

Haven't voted yet, on a kiosk at $.25/minute so must return later after I've decided.

Pie-es-Tasty
Dec 19, 2005, 04:51 PM
Both sides have made good points, however ravensfire, most of your issues on the Triumvirate thread have to do with simple typos (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it doesn't seem that big of a deal). The biggest issue I interpret that you have is from the "overrides" as you put it. It seems to me that these give power to offices that, without these clauses, wouldn't be able to acomplish anything. These "overrides" also have built in checks and balances. However you are correct in that the Triumvirate is not perfect, but then niether is the Flexible.

I will however withold my vote until ravensfire posts his comparison.

Dr.Civ
Dec 19, 2005, 06:57 PM
long time reader first time poster. I origannly liked the idea of the Flexible gov, but in the end, i think the tri has better construction and its claims have been backed up more. I could still probably be swayed to the flex side, if i was convinced, but swissempire's points have me boting tri now.

no hard feelings, i don't want to be ostracized before i begin:crazyeye:

Swissempire
Dec 19, 2005, 07:03 PM
its tied and the supense is :ar15: me

o ya, 100th post
[party] [party] [party] [party] [party] [party] [party] :wavey:

Alphawolf
Dec 19, 2005, 07:05 PM
long time reader first time poster. I origannly liked the idea of the Flexible gov, but in the end, i think the tri has better construction and its claims have been backed up more. I could still probably be swayed to the flex side, if i was convinced, but swissempire's points have me boting tri now.

no hard feelings, i don't want to be ostracized before i begin:crazyeye:

You won't be ostracized by anyone here. But if they try hit them with a fish. ;) DaveShack recomends trout, I usually use a catfish. :lol:

:wavey: And Welcome to the Demogame Dr.Civ!:D :woohoo: :clap:

-the Wolf

Dr.Civ
Dec 19, 2005, 07:09 PM
thanks Alphawolf! I'm confused though as to whether the poll closes tommorw as in 12:01 tonight or tommorow as in all day tommorow it will be open?

Dr.Civ
Dec 19, 2005, 07:11 PM
never mind

Alphawolf
Dec 19, 2005, 07:20 PM
As a note the Triumvirate has been updated to v5.2. Please you the link on the first post of this thread. All know typos have been fixed. :D

-the Wolf

ravensfire
Dec 19, 2005, 07:43 PM
Areas of significant difference. Note - it's a bit hard at times, as the Triumverate ruleset continues to change without the courtesy of a changelog.

Chaotic

One of my points is that the Triumverate system is Chaotic. Oddly, although it specifies many procedures, it leaves the coordination of other actions unspecified. Examples: All Assembly decisions, additions to Cabinet. This chaos is fairly systemic throughout the Triumverate system.

The DGVII ruleset assigns powers to leaders, and gives the President catch-all authority. The verbage used in that ruleset is broad, so that it's easy to know which leader should be running discussions and polls for decisions.

Vacant positions (specific to Triumverate).

The Triumverate specifically sets the Triuverate apart and seperate from everything else. A notable example of this is the absence of a member or the office becoming vacant. The process this proposal uses is to consolidate the already broad powers of the Triumverate into fewer people! Further, deputies for these positions are explicitly forbidden.

DGVII uses deputies for all non-Judicial positions, and provides for appointment of citizens to vacant offices. This appointment process is balanced by a Confirmation poll, that allows the chance of an appointment being overturned. We divide tasks into offices to allow more people to experience the game and to prevent a leader from being overloaded.

Presidential Nominations
The Triumverate does not allow self-nominations. This quite honestly makes no sense at all. As DS has suggested, all it takes is for someone to say "I nominate the entire Citizen Registry", and the rule is circumvented. No rational reason for this rule has been given.

Triumverate Elections
Part of the ruleset requires that the Triumverate is elected as a whole, and is then contradicted a few clauses later. I'm going to assume that the slate process is the intended process. This ignores the person that wants to run for a position, but doesn't have anyone to run with for the other roles. This person may very well be the most qualified, but because they don't have running mates, they are tossed aside. We, the citizens, will suffer for this.

Impeachment
The Triumverate does not allow for poor governors who otherwise follow the law to be removed from office. Although the recall provision is new, and has not been used,

Overrides

Just in case nobody's figured it out, I'm rather against overrides. Regarless, the Triumverate has them in multiple places, with multiple conditions and restrictions on top of that. It's not a simple process. The reasons I've seen given for overrides are "add conflict" and "respond to emergencies". Neither of these reasons are particularly strong. They don't "add" conflict, they shift who has the ultimate control. The "respond to emergencies" reason is based on the expectation that the Governor will be unreasonsable and NOT respond when requested.

General Structure

The entire Triumverate CoL is rather long, complicated and difficult to read. Sections don't read easily, and there are multiple contradictions.

With the Flexible ruleset, you can grab sections from DG VII and plug a clause on adding/removing offices and you're done with a solid, well-defined ruleset. To date, the supporters of the Triumverate haven't taken a critical eye to the ruleset. It's been people that aren't totally in support of it. That's not a healthy sign.

-- Ravensfire

Imerator29
Dec 19, 2005, 07:51 PM
To date, the supporters of the Triumverate haven't taken a critical eye to the ruleset. It's been people that aren't totally in support of it. That's not a healthy sign.

-- Ravensfire

Fine I support it I'll go through it and point out what I see are problems. But I believe you are missing Stilgar's critique of it, some supporters have taken a critical eye to it. But by the same token I haven't seen supporters of the flexible take a critical eye to it and you can't say that it is perfect. That is not a healthy sign.

ravensfire
Dec 19, 2005, 07:55 PM
Yes, and no.

The Flexible concept doesn't have a full-blown proposal the way the Triumverate does. Quite honestly, take parts of DG VII, plug in the flex parts, and call it done. Tried and tested ruleset with 2 or 3 changed sections.

-- Ravensfire

Imerator29
Dec 19, 2005, 08:02 PM
Yes, and no.

The Flexible concept doesn't have a full-blown proposal the way the Triumverate does. Quite honestly, take parts of DG VII, plug in the flex parts, and call it done. Tried and tested ruleset with 2 or 3 changed sections.

-- Ravensfire

But what if the citizens don't want parts from DG VII, I know I don't until I at least find out what it is, you shouldn't assume that parts of DG VII will go into it. With the Triumvirate you have a locked set of rules to play by that are somewhat flexible, but the Flexible government can go in any direction become any abomination thinkable.

I for one do not like all the appointment that occurs in the Flexible, but that's just me.

ravensfire
Dec 19, 2005, 08:08 PM
I for one do not like all the appointment that occurs in the Flexible, but that's just me.

And yet, the Triumverate also uses appointments (see Vacancies section), and allows for the cabinet to vary!

Hmmmm.

-- Ravensfire

Pie-es-Tasty
Dec 19, 2005, 08:58 PM
Triumverate Elections
Part of the ruleset requires that the Triumverate is elected as a whole, and is then contradicted a few clauses later. I'm going to assume that the slate process is the intended process. This ignores the person that wants to run for a position, but doesn't have anyone to run with for the other roles. This person may very well be the most qualified, but because they don't have running mates, they are tossed aside. We, the citizens, will suffer for this.

As soon as I read that, it threw up a huge red flag. I was planning on, later after I had seen a few terms play out, mabye running for a minor office by myself, but if this is true, then I won't be able to do that. Can anyone else confirm that, or find the relavant section?

Are you also saying that the final Flexible government won't just the Triumvirate with sections crossed out, but it will be a mix of Triumvirate, previous Demogames, and completely new things?

Alphawolf
Dec 19, 2005, 09:05 PM
As soon as I read that, it threw up a huge red flag. I was planning on, later after I had seen a few terms play out, mabye running for a minor office by myself, but if this is true, then I won't be able to do that. Can anyone else confirm that, or find the relavant section?

Section 5 is the Relevent Section:
Section 5 Elections

A) Triumvirate Elections
I. The Triumvirate shall be elected as a whole, not by individual positions.
II. Nomination must include all three members of the Triumvirate, self nominations of a group are
allowed.
III. Sun Set Clause
IIIA. A vote will held at the end of the second term if the Yeas number less than 51% Articles I and II will be nullified and Articles IV and V shall be activated. Should the above election law be retained Sections IV and V shall be expunged.
Elections Laws will be replaced by the following set.
IV. The offices of President, Secretary of State, and the Secretary of War shall be elected in their own polls.
V. Nominations for President, Secretary of State, and the Secretary of War may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

It applies to the Triumvirate only not to a Cabinet member, Judge, or Governor. But I was about to remove it.

-the Wolf

ravensfire
Dec 19, 2005, 09:09 PM
Are you also saying that the final Flexible government won't just the Triumvirate with sections crossed out, but it will be a mix of Triumvirate, previous Demogames, and completely new things?

I don't know. I'm going to toss out a section based monstly on previous DG's, with the flex stuff added. Ginger_Ale started this option, so they're kinda in charge of it.

-- Ravensfire

Alphawolf
Dec 19, 2005, 09:15 PM
Ginger_Ale started this option, so they're kinda in charge of it.

-- Ravensfire

:mischief: Since when was Ginger_Ale a "they"? :rotfl:

-the Wolf

Octavian X
Dec 19, 2005, 09:22 PM
I voted for the flexible government. The Triumvirate, in all its procedural glory, is simply too rigid and complex for this game. Either the government under a Triumvirate system will fail entirely, or it will end up alienating so many people that the game as a whole will fail.

I can see no justification for organizing anything among lines that are that complex and lengthy. This game is about going out there to have a bit of fun, not finding the best way to defeat your opponents through litigation.

Alphawolf
Dec 19, 2005, 11:05 PM
Version 5.3 is up.

I would like to thank Ravensfire for telling me what a Change Log is.

Change Log
V5.3
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause II, Sub-Clause IIA, Point 3 added: The President retains all powers not expressly given to another official and not reserved by the Citizens Assembly.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause II, Sub-Clause IIB, Point 1, Sub-Point B changed: The Secretary of State no longer needs the Triumvirates Permission to accept a city.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause III, Point 1, Sub-Point A changed: for clarity.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause III, Point 1, Sub-Point B changed: for clarity.
Section 1, Sub-Section B, Clause III, Sub-Clause IIID, Point 4 added: The Minister of Culture will keep list of all of our Cities, their current culture level, how fast they are gaining culture, a projection of when they will next increase in culture, their current level on the Great Person Bar, how much is being gained on that bar per turn and when that city will produce a Great Person.
Section 5, Sub-Section A changed in its entirety to be more inclusive.

-the Wolf

Pie-es-Tasty
Dec 19, 2005, 11:36 PM
Considering the well thought out arguments by both sides, and the newly revised Triumvirate, I have made my decision. Thanks for all your help, those who answered or helped answer.

Stilgar08
Dec 20, 2005, 01:33 AM
And yet, the Triumverate also uses appointments (see Vacancies section), and allows for the cabinet to vary!

Hmmmm.

-- Ravensfire

In the tri it's a completely different thing! You use appointments when fast decisions need to be done, not as a regular turnset! You are comparing birches and apples here! -Hmmmm to you! ;)

And please leave the Directopr of Intelligence alone - That is ONE position in the whole government, not the government as a whole! And it has only be implemented for adding "feel" to the position...

To me it's not surprising that the party which seeks for complete control of the DG is all for the flexible government. It would make things much easier for them!

P.S.: I urge no one to vote :p but I would suggest to vote for the tri. Simply put; it's well constructed and well thought through. If it's not perfect so might be it. The flexible government isn't even complete!

Stilgar08
Dec 20, 2005, 02:15 AM
I'd like to support ravensfire suggestions to check the discussion-thread about the tri-government (Especially version 4.0) and my remarks on his remarks ;) - If you find the time check out version 5.3 and compare and you see that a lot has gone on since then turning down his most critical points!

Furthermore the fact that we focus on this government doesn't mean we couldn't change important points until we start the game... (I suggest to start when we are ready, not to start when it's a "cool date to start"...


Areas of significant difference. Note - it's a bit hard at times, as the Triumverate ruleset continues to change without the courtesy of a changelog.

polemic!

Chaotic
Examples: All Assembly decisions, additions to Cabinet. This chaos is fairly systemic throughout the Triumverate system.

Well you examples are not really easy to grip I'd say!


Vacant positions (specific to Triumverate).

The Triumverate specifically sets the Triuverate apart and seperate from everything else. A notable example of this is the absence of a member or the office becoming vacant. The process this proposal uses is to consolidate the already broad powers of the Triumverate into fewer people! Further, deputies for these positions are explicitly forbidden.

Well, in the Flexible government we vote for the DP and he appoints the rest of the government. (I'm exaggerating here but so does ravensfire ;) ) That's much more democratic for sure (for the record: I'm being ironic here).

[QUOTE]DGVII uses deputies for all non-Judicial positions, and provides for appointment of citizens to vacant offices. This appointment process is balanced by a Confirmation poll, that allows the chance of an appointment being overturned. We divide tasks into offices to allow more people to experience the game and to prevent a leader from being overloaded.

First of all this is NOT DGVII, it's the first Civ4 DG, so it might be a good idea to start something new with an adjusted ruleset.
If it turns out the other side is right, I will happily bow to you while you say "I told you" 107times! But I want to try something new which has a chance to work! This is definitely the fact with the tri-government.

Don't want to be rude or anything but your second point here is ridiculous! It was the major task of the tri to allow as many people as possible to get involved! There are loads of positions and a lot of polls have to be done in order to verify multiple decisions. Furthermore the level of involvement is sort of balanced IMO and there are different levels of involvement where you can participate!

Presidential Nominations
The Triumverate does not allow self-nominations. This quite honestly makes no sense at all. As DS has suggested, all it takes is for someone to say "I nominate the entire Citizen Registry", and the rule is circumvented. No rational reason for this rule has been given.

How if it would simply be for the feel of the position just like the feel that the DoI is appointed? To me this is a good point for this rule!
DS' point that one could nominate for the whole citizen registy can be circumvented by putting in a phrase like "every citizen is allowed to nominate no more than X citizens for the position of DP..." (X for me would be 3 here). This is not cast in stone!!

The founding fathers you Americans are so proud of were great people, but they were stubborn, snobbish great land owners also. But they knew one thing that all great people know: That they couldn't know or foresee everything!

Same with the tri... We can change the government ruleset when something turns out to make the game unplayable (I doubt that this will be the case! ;) ). The tri is the far more advanced government-type in my opinion the way to go from here!

Triumverate Elections
Part of the ruleset requires that the Triumverate is elected as a whole, and is then contradicted a few clauses later. I'm going to assume that the slate process is the intended process. This ignores the person that wants to run for a position, but doesn't have anyone to run with for the other roles. This person may very well be the most qualified, but because they don't have running mates, they are tossed aside. We, the citizens, will suffer for this.

I have a confession to make: I didn't read the tri-version 5.3 as a whole but only overread it. But where do you get from that the tri- has to be formed before the voting takes place?? An excerpt from the current version:


A) Triumvirate Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.
II. Nominations for Triumvirate positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

There isn't stated that you need mates to be part of the tri! And it isn't implied as well ;) . This argument is a rather unfair approach against the tri!


Overrides

Just in case nobody's figured it out, I'm rather against overrides. Regarless, the Triumverate has them in multiple places, with multiple conditions and restrictions on top of that. It's not a simple process. The reasons I've seen given for overrides are "add conflict" and "respond to emergencies". Neither of these reasons are particularly strong. They don't "add" conflict, they shift who has the ultimate control. The "respond to emergencies" reason is based on the expectation that the Governor will be unreasonsable and NOT respond when requested.

Nope! The shift of powers and the "respond to emergencies" isn't implying that governors are unreasonable and wouldn't respond when requested! It's about concentration of power in order to raise the ability to respond and respond fast! It's very clear that no matter how fast governors might respond it'll take more time than when the tri can just decide...

I'm all against concentration of powers, mind you! But with the restrictions and the specifications when and how this happens in the tri-frame I can live with it for the sake of playability!

General Structure

The entire Triumverate CoL is rather long, complicated and difficult to read. Sections don't read easily, and there are multiple contradictions.

It is far more structured than the flexible government. The flexible government is easier to read because it's not that thought through, IMHO. Of course it growed from the DGVII in your final version but nevertheless I don't feel it is easier to read than the tri-approach. I encourage everyone here to check it out him/herself! (Especially the "structured" approaches by DS and ravensfire on page 2(?)!

With the Flexible ruleset, you can grab sections from DG VII and plug a clause on adding/removing offices and you're done with a solid, well-defined ruleset. To date, the supporters of the Triumverate haven't taken a critical eye to the ruleset. It's been people that aren't totally in support of it. That's not a healthy sign.

Once again this is not really a good point: The fact that you are into the ruleset isn't implying that tri-supporters aren't. I know you mention this because of the fact of several issues we had in version 4.0 (and might still have??) but in the discussion there I delivered pro's why this is included. The fact that the party supports the flexible approach says enough, I'd say!

Finally a treat for the long read:

I still feel uncomfortable with this, I'd rather have more of a 'traditional' government system than this, but yes, it works...

q.e.d. :D

Stilgar
:D

Stilgar08
Dec 20, 2005, 02:50 AM
Can we sticky this poll?? It's a very important one!!! :bump:

Nobody
Dec 20, 2005, 03:54 AM
Version 5.3 is up.

Hey cant you stop changing what we are voting for while it is being voted on, kinda unfair

ravensfire
Dec 20, 2005, 08:45 AM
polemic!
Nope. When you are discussing the merits of something that keeps changing, a log of those changes is critical. More than a few times during this discussion, points have been raised and discussed that are invalidated by a change to the ruleset. Without a changelog, it's quite difficult to know what has, and has not, been changed.

Well, in the Flexible government we vote for the DP and he appoints the rest of the government. (I'm exaggerating here but so does ravensfire ) That's much more democratic for sure (for the record: I'm being ironic here). I exaggerate on my point? Really? Would you like for me to quote the sections of the Tri where the Triumverate consolidates power the event of an absence or vacancy? Please.

First of all this is NOT DGVII, it's the first Civ4 DG, so it might be a good idea to start something new with an adjusted ruleset. Likewise, it might be a good idea to stick with a core that we know works, and provide flexibility in determining offices.

If it turns out the other side is right, I will happily bow to you while you say "I told you" 107times! But I want to try something new which has a chance to work! This is definitely the fact with the tri-government. I won't need to do that ...

Don't want to be rude or anything but your second point here is ridiculous! It was the major task of the tri to allow as many people as possible to get involved! There are loads of positions and a lot of polls have to be done in order to verify multiple decisions. Furthermore the level of involvement is sort of balanced IMO and there are different levels of involvement where you can participate! Involvent != Elected Position. Involvement means being active in discussions and voting.

DS' point that one could nominate for the whole citizen registy can be circumvented by putting in a phrase like "every citizen is allowed to nominate no more than X citizens for the position of DP..." (X for me would be 3 here). This is not cast in stone!! You're proving my point! You've got a rule that so easily circumvented that you have to toss in even more ridiculous rules to enforce it! What is a good reason to restrict self-nominations? Nobody has given one yet!

I have a confession to make: I didn't read the tri-version 5.3 as a whole but only overread it. But where do you get from that the tri- has to be formed before the voting takes place?? An excerpt from the current version: See the note at top about changes w/o a log. This was an earlier version of the Tri.

There isn't stated that you need mates to be part of the tri! And it isn't implied as well . This argument is a rather unfair approach against the tri! How well do you know the government system that you prefer? This was in the 5.2 version! It was removed in 5.3 (to be "more inclusive").

Nope! The shift of powers and the "respond to emergencies" isn't implying that governors are unreasonable and wouldn't respond when requested! It's about concentration of power in order to raise the ability to respond and respond fast! It's very clear that no matter how fast governors might respond it'll take more time than when the tri can just decide...Really? Clear to who? It's clear to me alright, clearly wrong. Governors know their cities. Ask them to do X, and let them decide how to do it. Several of our governors will have carefully crafted plans for their cities, let them make the adjustments.

I'm all against concentration of powers, mind you! But with the restrictions and the specifications when and how this happens in the tri-frame I can live with it for the sake of playability!But the whole consolidation of power within the Tri if someone's not there doesn't bother you ...

It is far more structured than the flexible government. The flexible government is easier to read because it's not that thought through, IMHO. That's almost funny. Sorry, but incorrect. Take a hard look through the Tri system, a really hard look. There's a lot of requirements and processes that honestly won't happen. For example - look at the requirements of the Minister of Culture. That won't be done by every MoC. Trust me on that. Heck - there are aspects that cannot happen (prebuild for wonders). Seriously, if you really support the ruleset, take a hard, critical look through it, and work through the steps for a mid-game turn. See how much work is required, how much tracking is needed. Look for the inconsistencies and trouble areas, and fix them. Use the DG VII ruleset to look for the "odd scenarios" that you need to account for - there's several years of experience in that set of the problems, issues and disputes that will arise.

Finally a treat for the long read:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginger_Ale_Founder of the flexible gov after reading a structured approach of the flexible gov by DS
I still feel uncomfortable with this, I'd rather have more of a 'traditional' government system than this, but yes, it works...


q.e.d.

I'll answer with another quote, that you didn't include.
Wow, just what I had been thinking in my mind. A semi-changed DGVII, with a bit of my proposal - pretty nice, I think it would work.

:eek:

-- Ravensfire

Ginger_Ale
Dec 20, 2005, 09:07 AM
I still feel uncomfortable with this, I'd rather have more of a 'traditional' government system than this, but yes, it works...
(in response to Stilgar08)
I said it works. Does this mean I like it? Not really. The Triumvirate 5.2 (or whatever it is) works, as does mine. Do you know the reason I wrote that?

I didn't want to 'stall' the game any longer. I was still assuming we were going for a Jan 1st start date (now, well, not sure if that'll happen), so I wanted to actually make some progress rather than just shoot it down. Honestly, if we had all the time in the world, I wouldn't accept the proposal as DS suggested. But in the essence of time, compromises will be needed.

Provolution
Dec 20, 2005, 11:08 AM
I would put my bet on the Triumvirate. for ages, some cabinet positions have been artifically equalled to the others. The real cornerstones of civilization, war and diplomacy are truly the decisive gamebreakers. The Triumvirate balances the three aspects of Finance, War and Diplomacy in the lead, and clearly places responsibilities around these.

More auxilliary planning requiring less focus is science, culture and interior planning, which is more low key planning, important, but not as monumental as the tasks in the Triumvirate.

The citizens require this clarity of long term and major decisive planning compared to more routinely planning (culture, religion, interior planning and science planning).

What failed in DG6, was the abysmal attempt to divide science and culture into short and long term, and artificially abusing "equality of offices" as a term and construct for making it more palatable to "democratic citizens", where the
writers of that constitution forgot to notice that they created redundant jobs right and left. DG6 was an attempt to create a relatively minor "External Consul" out of War and Diplomacy. That was a major mistake, and critics of that blunder was verbally shot down on sight, in order to defend that idea to the bitter end.

So why this desperate reference to DG1 through DG6 in Civ 3, a totally different game? I am not willingly recycling these obsolete and hardly upgradeable experiences right away with a rubberstamp approval.

Triumvirate wins the following ten categories:

1. Emphasis on key offices regarding Civics, finance, war, diplomacy and wonders and projecting that in the Triumvirate offices.

2. Making a clear-cut system with less loops and gaps to be exploited by seasoned optimates against citizens not "on the inside".

3. making a clear cut chain of command with real responsibilities and substance to each office better than the flexible government

4. Not overloading the government with peripheral rights to offices to be created on the fly by those best at spinning the rulesets.

5. Triumvirate is created by a non-aristocratic wing of new players of demogames ,and they should be entitled to leave their mark on the demogame, after the six mixed successes crafted by "veterans" and "aristocrats".

6. Triumvirate has a version handling system with objective criteria and better processed, even professionally handled process, whereas Flexible rings more of jingoism and ancient demogame rhetoric.

7. Triumvirate allows for setting apart major and minor leaders, so that a relatively lower profile leader would naturally seem to be unfit for a higher office, but still be capable of filling a meaningful cabinet position elsewhere.

8. Triumvirate has a clearer flow and understanding of action and consequence, whereas Flexible is more vague and easier to be exploited by verbally strong agitators good at bending the law to their will.

9. Triumvirate is simply put better written and better organized

10. "Triumvirate" sounds more powerful and epic, than the more casual and dull "Flexible", which could as well be a monkey wrench or a condom.

Stilgar08
Dec 20, 2005, 11:29 AM
(in response to Stilgar08)
I said it works. Does this mean I like it? Not really. The Triumvirate 5.2 (or whatever it is) works, as does mine. Do you know the reason I wrote that?

I didn't want to 'stall' the game any longer. I was still assuming we were going for a Jan 1st start date (now, well, not sure if that'll happen), so I wanted to actually make some progress rather than just shoot it down. Honestly, if we had all the time in the world, I wouldn't accept the proposal as DS suggested. But in the essence of time, compromises will be needed.

Fair enough! I don't say that the tri is ready as is as well. Especially your last sentence makes absolute sense, regardless which government we'll choose in the process! :)

Stilgar08
Dec 20, 2005, 12:00 PM
Ravensfire: We should both cool down a bit, don't you think?? (please note that I wrote "both" ;) ) If you're nearby I'd like to spend you a beer (or whatever...) :)

Nobody: I agree with you and would suggest to stop all improvement work on the government, until polling is done!

I don't have the time to answer Ravensfire's whole post but I'll try before I have to run, so sorry for any typo's due to hassle...

Without a changelog, it's quite difficult to know what has, and has not, been changed.

Granted, but this resulted out of the fact that Alphawolf is a newb and didn't know that. (This has changed, as far as I understand...)


Quote:
Well, in the Flexible government we vote for the DP and he appoints the rest of the government. (I'm exaggerating here but so does ravensfire ) That's much more democratic for sure (for the record: I'm being ironic here).

I exaggerate on my point? Really? Would you like for me to quote the sections of the Tri where the Triumverate consolidates power the event of an absence or vacancy? Please.

You didn't answer my point at all! The only 3 points where power gets consolidated is: absence and vacancy and emergency-response and none of these are long- or even mid-term!

Quote:
First of all this is NOT DGVII, it's the first Civ4 DG, so it might be a good idea to start something new with an adjusted ruleset.

Likewise, it might be a good idea to stick with a core that we know works, and provide flexibility in determining offices.

Agreed! :D It's up to the reader to decide that! But the flexible government isn't just providing flexibility in determining offices. It has other rulesets than the tri in (for me) major parts of the process of how the game will be played.


Quote:
If it turns out the other side is right, I will happily bow to you while you say "I told you" 107times! But I want to try something new which has a chance to work! This is definitely the fact with the tri-government.

I won't need to do that ...

You got me! :rolleyes:
And agreed again (finally a few points where we agree!)


Quote:
Don't want to be rude or anything but your second point here is ridiculous! It was the major task of the tri to allow as many people as possible to get involved! There are loads of positions and a lot of polls have to be done in order to verify multiple decisions. Furthermore the level of involvement is sort of balanced IMO and there are different levels of involvement where you can participate!

Involvent != Elected Position. Involvement means being active in discussions and voting.

The sentence about polling to me was the sentence about involvement in the way you stated here because when it comes to decision-making, polls are the way to ask the citizens about there opinion. And this poll is the perfect example of how involvement works with polls. Furthermore I don't see that tri-supporters think that only an elected position means involvement. You can see it by the many posts by many of us here AND in the citizen-group-section.
And you can't be serious to assume that in my world Involvement != Elected Position!!
I think I proved alot recently that I'm all for democracyand base-democracy where possible:

I'm elected to no position at all, but I feel pretty much involved right now! :)

Quote:
DS' point that one could nominate for the whole citizen registy can be circumvented by putting in a phrase like "every citizen is allowed to nominate no more than X citizens for the position of DP..." (X for me would be 3 here). This is not cast in stone!!

You're proving my point! You've got a rule that so easily circumvented that you have to toss in even more ridiculous rules to enforce it! What is a good reason to restrict self-nominations? Nobody has given one yet!

It's not a new rule, it's one clarifying sentence for people who would want to abuse a rule which clearly has something different in mind. Now you can come up with "implied is bad" again but what do you want? Clarification or implication?

Quote:
There isn't stated that you need mates to be part of the tri! And it isn't implied as well . This argument is a rather unfair approach against the tri!

How well do you know the government system that you prefer? This was in the 5.2 version! It was removed in 5.3 (to be "more inclusive").

First: Ok, so it's not a point anymore to talk about! :king:

Second: I have to admit I didn't know this and would have opponed if I would have known! It wasn't in the previous versions I read (until 4.X I think). I guess it has been done to simplify the criticized difficult setup of the tri-gov :mischief: . But I'm glad it's not in anymore! :)

Quote:
Nope! The shift of powers and the "respond to emergencies" isn't implying that governors are unreasonable and wouldn't respond when requested! It's about concentration of power in order to raise the ability to respond and respond fast! It's very clear that no matter how fast governors might respond it'll take more time than when the tri can just decide...

Really? Clear to who? It's clear to me alright, clearly wrong. Governors know their cities. Ask them to do X, and let them decide how to do it. Several of our governors will have carefully crafted plans for their cities, let them make the adjustments.

I stated my opinion you stated yours. We are having different ones here. Fine!


Quote:
I'm all against concentration of powers, mind you! But with the restrictions and the specifications when and how this happens in the tri-frame I can live with it for the sake of playability!

But the whole consolidation of power within the Tri if someone's not there doesn't bother you ...

Not as much as appointments in a massive way... Again I only encourage everyone to check the goals of the "party" in the citizen-group-section and ask yourself why they prefer the flexible government...


Unfortunately I have to run now... I will take a hard look at everything, ravensfire, don't you worry about me! ;)

Stilgar08

ravensfire
Dec 20, 2005, 12:46 PM
And with the poll closed, and the final results in, the Triumverate ruleset will guide us through the next demogame.

Thanks to all for participating and voting!

-- Ravensfire

Swissempire
Dec 20, 2005, 01:40 PM
wow, that was probably by far the best debate/arguement i've had in years!

Congrats to all!

Cyc
Dec 20, 2005, 03:19 PM
Hmmm, couldn't get here in time to vote.

Blkbird
Dec 20, 2005, 06:06 PM
I missed this poll, too. Two days is simply too short for such an imprtant matter. For the record, I object and challenge the validity of the result.

I am the Future
Dec 20, 2005, 08:00 PM
Though I am not in charge of the constituiton, I belive acording to the Tri Gov I am a senator so I hold some power. I would like to try and propose a combination of the 2 goverments. Which in the end makes for a simpler less beurocratic version of the Tri Gov.

ravensfire
Dec 20, 2005, 08:14 PM
Folks - this was a runoff from an earlier poll. Runoffs are generally 2 days long.

If starting the first is to be a reasonable goal, we need to polish up the Triumverate ruleset, get it ratified and get this started.

Once we get the game started, then citizens can start the amendment process on the ruleset.

For right now, this is the approach people have chosen. Let's run with it.

-- Ravensfire

Alphawolf
Dec 20, 2005, 08:25 PM
Though I am not in charge of the constituiton, I belive acording to the Tri Gov I am a senator so I hold some power. I would like to try and propose a combination of the 2 goverments. Which in the end makes for a simpler less beurocratic version of the Tri Gov.

:confused: The word Senator isn't even in the Triumvirate. Could you please explain?

-the Wolf

Nobody
Dec 20, 2005, 11:28 PM
i think he me he is a member of the citizens assembly

Stilgar08
Dec 21, 2005, 01:17 AM
I agree with swissempire here! Ravensfire is a tough opponent since his arguments are very good and it's not always easy to find counter-arguments for that. :hatsoff:

Personally I had to control myself for not getting TOO excited! :mischief:
If the DG as a whole turns out to be partly like this discussion it was one of my best choices to participate since I became a member of cfc! :)

Swissempire
Dec 21, 2005, 09:56 AM
Alpha, i compared your citziens assembly to everyone being senators. Sorry if thats not how you wanted it seen, but with veryone doing what a senator does, i perceived it as a valid comparison

So umm sorry if this was against your wishes:blush:

Alphawolf
Dec 21, 2005, 01:22 PM
Alpha, i compared your citziens assembly to everyone being senators. Sorry if thats not how you wanted it seen, but with veryone doing what a senator does, i perceived it as a valid comparison

So umm sorry if this was against your wishes:blush:

It's more or less true I just wanted to make clear that there no actually senatorial offices. It is a valid comparison I was just confused.

-the Wolf