Edit:

That means that this poll will be closed automatically on:

Jan 11, 2006, 12:41 AM CET
=
Jan 10, 2006, 11:41 PM GMT
=
Jan 10, 2006, 18:41 (6:40 pm) New York time
=
Jan 10, 2006, 15:41 (3:40 pm) Los Angeles time

Due to the stunning finish of this election (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150561) a request was made to the Moderators and Thunderfall to verify if the election was fair. Thunderfall performed a double-login check and found no less than 12 identical accounts and also another group of 2 identical accounts. The group with the 2 was identified as 2 siblings playing in the game.
In the group of 12 was 1 person who registered 11 accounts and voted with them. Whether he holds the 12th account is still unknown; the 12th member has so far not responded to questions send to him/her through PM and email. Now the deadline has passed for him/her to respond, we see no other way as to treat the 12th as another DL of the group of 11. The group of 12 is now no longer part of the Demogame. Number 12 can return, if (s)he contacts the moderators and can answer the open questions to our satisfaction.

The 12 accounts are (in alphabetical order):

Alphawolf
CaliSurfer
Drunken Monkey
Gorillagorilla
Imerator29
Knightlancer
Namelessones
Neanderthalnsis
OfficialDeity
Pegasus_wings
Slim_Chance
Sticky Fingers

And now we have arrived at the "awkward choice". The 12 have voted in the Which government style should get our focus? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147660). If we disregard the 10 votes of Double logins the outcome would have been:

Flexible - 19 votes
Traditional - 5 votes
Triumvirate - 10 votes
Abstain - 1 vote.

As a consequence of this first poll (illegally) tied at 19 all for flexible and Triumvirate a 2nd poll was commenced; What government style should we focus on? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=148415). Triumvirate beat Flexible 22-16. If we deduct the illegally cast votes, the corrected result is: Triumvirate 12 - Flexible 16.

This all means that we are going for a Triumvirate government, while the majority of our citizens in fact wanted a flexible government. So that brings us to the awkward question: Do we go on with the Triumvirate government or go for Flexible ??

alphawolf cheated! the same alphawolf that guid-guided us through the demogame!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? our president and founding father!?!?!?!!?! this is like finding that the George Washington signed the declaration of independence 12 times:confused: :confused: :eek: my heart just skipped 2 beats when i saw his name. i continue to vote flexible because i find it better and well, more flexble. plus the party supports it and attendance does drop to the end of the demogame, amazing is how he created all those different personalities. a marine for one. a tennessee man for the other. he is an evil genius

Wow - that's, well, surprising to read, although suspected by his absence.

Oh, and Flexible. Tri is still to complicated and involved for my taste.

-- Ravensfire

Wow Rik that is amazing!!!

Writing this not only as the Flexible creator but as a citizen,

As sad and furious as I am upon seeing the results of the two polls how there were DLs created just to tie the poll, later to overturn it, I feel it would be best to stick with what we have. I can't even start to understand the type of person that cannot accept losing in a poll even once, however, we can't just let go of all that has been done. We have progressed far into these elections and I don't want to take away the roles these people have rightously earned. We can't back out now; the game has to start sometime. It is best to progress onwards with what we have, however illegally attained it was.

Alphawolf

Hmm... I suspected that after his sudden unexplainable absence

This all means that we are going for a Triumvirate government, while the majority of our citizens in fact wanted a flexible government. So that brings us to the awkward question: Do we go on with the Triumvirate government or go for Flexible ??

Well we were so close to starting with the Triumvirate government that it almost seems silly to scrap it and start working on a new government model. Equally though, I originally voted for a flexible government because of the views of The Party. The Triumvirate model seems good although I'd rather wait and see how the flexible system will work out.


EDIT: Another idea -

Why don't we just add clauses to the CoL that allow us to change to a Flexible Government if voted for by a referendum? We can use the triumvirate while a Flexible model is drawn up.

Writing this not only as the Flexible creator but as a citizen,

As sad and furious as I am upon seeing the results of the two polls how there were DLs created just to tie the poll, later to overturn it, I feel it would be best to stick with what we have. I can't even start to understand the type of person that cannot accept losing in a poll even once, however, we can't just let go of all that has been done. We have progressed far into these elections and I don't want to take away the roles these people have rightously earned. We can't back out now; the game has to start sometime. It is best to progress onwards with what we have, however illegally attained it was.
well, i am betting that we will start on feb 1st anyway, for term endings and elections anyway, so we do have time to redo some polls

OMG, my paradoid instinct (see here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150533&page=3#post3529446)) has been confirmed, the sinner is apparently indeed no less than Alphawolf! :eek:

OMG, my paradoid instinkt (see here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=150533&page=3#post3529446)) has been confirmed, Alphawolf is indeed the sinner!
my god, you visionary!:eek: :eek:
will we have a re-election for president too or take runner-up? i say re-election, that we can have a better choice
EDIT: Seems that Awolf got lots of mail from the mods and angry citizens. tried contacting him and he has hit 70 messages.

I would have hoped for a discussion on something of this magnitude prior to a vote.

Our current choice is between a Code of Laws which is ready to use, and an idea for a different setup which might need a couple of weeks work.

The Triumvirate CoL is finished, and despite it not being the true initial choice of the people, it was ratified overwhelmingly even discounting the duplicate votes. Granted, it has a couple of flaws which have already been identified and amendment threads have been started for those flaws. We should recognize that many players put a lot of comments into the Triumvirate system, and what resulted was largely due to those comments. In fact there are very few comments which were not implemented directly from the comment itself.

The Flexible system has not been fleshed out with the modifications which would be necessary to transform the Civ3 government to a Civ4 government. We would have to go back and complete that work, and hold a full ratification cycle.

If we choose to continue with Triumvirate we would then have to decide to either hold a new election for the vacant office of President or to continue on as the CoL says with the Secretary of State and Secretary of War taking on the President's duties.

If we choose to "switch" to the original true choice of Flexible, then we would need to hold elections, probably setting the start date at Feb 1.

I'm holding my vote to see what debate there might be.

Our current choice is between a Code of Laws which is ready to use, and an idea for a different setup which might need a couple of weeks work.
I do admit the Flexible would need a bit more attention and work, but I thought ravensfire posted a good (in his own words) 'core' to work off of here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3471934&postcount=38).

The Triumvirate CoL is finished, and despite it not being the true initial choice of the people, it was ratified overwhelmingly even discounting the duplicate votes.
Considering it was ratified as a result of winning the "Which government?" poll twice, which wouldn't have gone its way, I'm not sure that means much. It wouldn't have had the chance to be ratified in the first place - we don't know if the Flexible would've been 'ratified overwhelmingly' either.

I'm not sure really what is the best course of action, but the 'safest' option would be the Triumvirate, but I'd be willing to change my vote if people are willing to try it.

This isn't the place to be attacking Alphawolf. This is to decide on the next course of action. Attacking alphawolf is considered trolling/flaming, especially since he can't post, and you're thus talking about him behind his back. Now, if you have any problems with the legality of the elections situation, there's always the judiciary. Please stop the flaming/trolling/spamming now. This is about the Triumvirate government vs. Flexible, not Alphawolf.

I would have hoped for a discussion on something of this magnitude prior to a vote.

Our current choice is between a Code of Laws which is ready to use, and an idea for a different setup which might need a couple of weeks work.

The Triumvirate CoL is finished, and despite it not being the true initial choice of the people, it was ratified overwhelmingly even discounting the duplicate votes. Granted, it has a couple of flaws which have already been identified and amendment threads have been started for those flaws. We should recognize that many players put a lot of comments into the Triumvirate system, and what resulted was largely due to those comments. In fact there are very few comments which were not implemented directly from the comment itself.

The Flexible system has not been fleshed out with the modifications which would be necessary to transform the Civ3 government to a Civ4 government. We would have to go back and complete that work, and hold a full ratification cycle.

If we choose to continue with Triumvirate we would then have to decide to either hold a new election for the vacant office of President or to continue on as the CoL says with the Secretary of State and Secretary of War taking on the President's duties.

If we choose to "switch" to the original true choice of Flexible, then we would need to hold elections, probably setting the start date at Feb 1.

I'm holding my vote to see what debate there might be.

I completely agree with DS (thanks btw for posting it so quickly so I don't have to write it myself), and I too will hold my vote for a bit yet.

I would have hoped for a discussion on something of this magnitude prior to a vote.

Our current choice is between a Code of Laws which is ready to use, and an idea for a different setup which might need a couple of weeks work.

The Triumvirate CoL is finished, and despite it not being the true initial choice of the people, it was ratified overwhelmingly even discounting the duplicate votes. Granted, it has a couple of flaws which have already been identified and amendment threads have been started for those flaws. We should recognize that many players put a lot of comments into the Triumvirate system, and what resulted was largely due to those comments. In fact there are very few comments which were not implemented directly from the comment itself.

The Flexible system has not been fleshed out with the modifications which would be necessary to transform the Civ3 government to a Civ4 government. We would have to go back and complete that work, and hold a full ratification cycle.

If we choose to continue with Triumvirate we would then have to decide to either hold a new election for the vacant office of President or to continue on as the CoL says with the Secretary of State and Secretary of War taking on the President's duties.

If we choose to "switch" to the original true choice of Flexible, then we would need to hold elections, probably setting the start date at Feb 1.

I'm holding my vote to see what debate there might be.

while it would take more work dont you think we should do it? seriously, flexible is what was fairly voted in. we cant go ahead against the people's wishes. plus, flexible will be alot better for us when we get late game. it might require new elections but it's only the 6th, so technically we have until february 1st, due to the 1st of month, 1st of term tradition. 25 days is enough to modify, ratify and elect the governement

There are two fairly well done proposals here for the Flexible ruleset (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948&page=2). Neither would take significant development to finalize.

If we did stick with the current ruleset, make the runner up in the Prez election the new Prez and we can start pretty darn soon.

If we reset and go back to Flex, we'll need to redo the elections, and start in 2 weeks.

-- Ravensfire

There are two fairly well done proposals here for the Flexible ruleset (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948&page=2). Neither would take significant development to finalize.

If we did stick with the current ruleset, make the runner up in the Prez election the new Prez and we can start pretty darn soon.

If we reset and go back to Flex, we'll need to redo the elections, and start in 2 weeks.

I don't think it's that simple. If we switch to Flexible, quite a few elections for various newly created ministries will have to be held after the game starts, during which time the play will likely be rather slow. I believe it will cost us more than just 2 weeks in total.

If we reset and go back to Flex, we'll need to redo the elections, and start in 2 weeks.

-- Ravensfire
we have enough time. i think we should redo prez elections in anycase. no offence to man o' action, but i'd like to see a second canidate up there.

Oops, I voted without reading what the poll was about. (Duur I r stupid)
I just typed a bunch of stuff about Alphawolf, but then I remembered Chieftess's comment, and decided that even tho it wasn't mean, I'm not risking it.

I think that Triumvirate, being very complete, and already having elected officals, would be appropriate to coninute with that. However, Flexible did win, and if that is the will of the people, then it would also be appropirate to continue along with that. Of course in past real democracies, elections that were later held to be fraudulent weren't discarded, as far as I know (I could always be wrong).

What I'm really trying to say is, well, let's see what the poll decides and continue with that.

I don't think it's that simple. If we switch to Flexible, quite a few elections for various newly created ministries will have to be held after the game starts, during which time the play will likely be rather slow. I believe it will cost us more than just 2 weeks in total.

Not really. The core of the ruleset is there, so we know the initial positions. Start the elections and tweak the ruleset at the same time, and we can go in 2 weeks. That's assuming the Pres gets the game started fast.

-- Ravensfire

we have enough time.

I don't see why. If we stay with Tri, we can start right now (with Secretary of the State assuming presidential power). There is no need to wait until 1 Feb. or anything.

The question therefore is, is Flex so much better than Tri that the difference is worth three, four weeks of time?

To make it perfectly clear: Alphawolf is not proven guilty; he is suspended from taking part in the Civ 4 Demogame because he didn't answer the questions asked by the staff in the timeframe that was set for it. He was offline from the beginning of the crisis till just before this thread was opened.

We are still unsure if Alphawolf is linked to this election fraud or that someone close to him (same university) played a mean trick on him.

So: Do not convict Alphawolf as long as he is presumed innocent. I remind the citizens of the Constitution; Article B - 1g "The Right to Presumption of Innocense unless proven guilty".

After everything we've been through to actually get things up and running, it would be a shame to throw it away because of one (potentially) manipulated poll. We've got an approved CoL ready (one that has undeniably passed). Who knows what we might lose if interest in the game decays if we take the time to rewrite our government.

I withhold my vote for now, pending any future facts brought up in this case.

seriously, flexible is what was fairly voted in. we cant go ahead against the people's wishes.

I consider this argument invalid, too. Flex *was* the choice of the people *at that time*. The circumstances have changed, and so will the choice of many. That the whole point of renewing decisions, which is common practice in every political system, democratic or not.

So: Do not convict Alphawolf as long as he is presumed innocent. I remind the citizens of the Constitution; Article B - 1g "The Right to Presumption of Innocense unless proven guilty".

You're right. Thanks for emphasizing it again.

I don't see why. If we stay with Tri, we can start right now (with Secretary of the State assuming presidential power). There is no need to wait until 1 Feb. or anything.

The question therefore is, is Flex so much better than Tri that the difference is worth three, four weeks of time?
feb 1st is the game start. terms always start on the 1st of the month

After everything we've been through to actually get things up and running, it would be a shame to throw it away because of one (potentially) manipulated poll. We've got an approved CoL ready (one that has undeniably passed). Who knows what we might lose if interest in the game decays if we take the time to rewrite our government.

I withhold my vote for now, pending any future facts brought up in this case.

As I've said however, that CoL wouldn't have been approved if it wasn't for those 'fake' results in the election. You don't poll options that have lost earlier polls, now do you? We've never tried to approve the Flexible, even if it won the polls. As ravensfire and others have said too, there are some versions of the Flexible governments that, while rough, are a good point to work off and would be pretty simple to turn into a working ruleset. I'm more about fun and ease of play than a ruleset that covers everything and limits everything.

feb 1st is the game start. terms always start on the 1st of the month

Not quite always, we started mid-month before and just had the term end at the end of the month.

There is nothing saying we can't have a term of say from Jan 25 thru Feb 28. All it has to be is a term of fixed length which is specified in advance. I personally saw to that when the Constitution was written. :cool:

There are two fairly well done proposals here for the Flexible ruleset (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948&page=2). Neither would take significant development to finalize.

Hard to argue with that given I'm the "editor" of one of the proposals.


If we did stick with the current ruleset, make the runner up in the Prez election the new Prez and we can start pretty darn soon.


I think we'd be stuck with either a new election or proceeding according to the existing rules, but that's not an official judicial opinion just yet.


If we reset and go back to Flex, we'll need to redo the elections, and start in 2 weeks.


Let's think in terms of 3 days for discussion and fine tuning, 4 days to ratify, 3 days for nominations, 3 days for elections. Yup, that means generating the game on Saturday 2 weeks from tomorrow, if we want maximum participation at the chat.

I'm still keeping an open mind for a bit longer, in part to see if there are any vehement opinions either way.

You don't poll options that have lost earlier polls, now do you?

Of course we do! Our constitution says specificly: "C. 3. - If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail."

So are you saying I can go put up another poll about government style and if Flexible wins, we change?

What if in the middle of the game I put up a poll saying "Should we switch to Flexible?", and Flexible wins? Do we just trash the Triumvirate??

What I was saying was, we wouldn't and we didn't poll a Flexible ratification because it 'lost'. Now that it appears Triumvirate 'lost', why would we have polled it? Therefore, it should've been as if that poll hadn't happened, since if the course of events went the right way, that poll would've never been made.

So are you saying I can go put up another poll about government style and if Flexible wins, we change?

This poll here *is* nothing else than what you're suggesting, don't you see?

What if in the middle of the game I put up a poll saying "Should we switch to Flexible?", and Flexible wins? Do we just trash the Triumvirate??

If you do it without proper reason, it would be an act of political vandalism and subject to judiciary charges. If you do have a sound reason to do it, I don't see where the problem is.

What I was saying was, we wouldn't and we didn't poll a Flexible ratification because it 'lost'. Now that it appears Triumvirate 'lost', why would we have polled it? Therefore, it should've been as if that poll hadn't happened, since if the course of events went the right way, that poll would've never been made.

"Would", "should", etc. There is no fictiveness in politics, because history is irreversible. Things have happened, and you can just act as if they had not.

Strictly constitutional speaking, the ratification of Triumvirate as Code of Law remains valid despite all the circumstances because there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits ratification of a set of rules as Code of Laws even if it has not gained majority in an earlier "choose between drafts" poll. The fact that more citizens have voted "yes" than "no" for Tri as CoL speaks for itself and cannot be denied. Plus that poll was *after* the "Tri vs. Flex" poll and therefore has precedence anyway.

Wow. Very interesting stuff, here. It's almost like actual government scandal!:p

I don't see why. If we stay with Tri, we can start right now (with Secretary of the State assuming presidential power). There is no need to wait until 1 Feb. or anything.

The question therefore is, is Flex so much better than Tri that the difference is worth three, four weeks of time?
Of course it is worth the time.

Besides we have to wait for the next elections to make sure that every thing is fair.

Of course it is worth the time.

Besides we have to wait for the next elections to make sure that every thing is fair.
future is right. we might as well wait. there is no rush. people can play a bit more civ4, while we straighten things out. plus, why are you so eager to start. would you rather start quick but shaky or late and steady?

would you rather start quick but shaky or late and steady?

That is a suggestive question. In my opinion, switching to Flex is likely to be more shaky than proceeding with Tri. So the answer is, I like quick and steady rather than late and shaky.

For clearification, I originally voted for Flex, too - as you can see for yourself. It's not Flex itself I am reluctant to, it's the cost of redoing things without any significant benefit in sight.

@Rik: When is this poll scheduled to end?

We are still unsure if Alphawolf is linked to this election fraud or that someone close to him (same university) played a mean trick on him.

So: Do not convict Alphawolf as long as he is presumed innocent. I remind the citizens of the Constitution; Article B - 1g "The Right to Presumption of Innocense unless proven guilty".
didnt he say he had a friend on the dg? perhaps it was him? i doubt anyone else knows that he plays a demogame. however how long until we can pinpoint him guilty. sooner or later he would see his e-mail and reply right?

Strictly constitutional speaking, the ratification of Triumvirate as Code of Law remains valid despite all the circumstances because there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits ratification of a set of rules as Code of Laws even if it has not gained majority in an earlier "choose between drafts" poll. The fact that more citizens have voted "yes" than "no" for Tri as CoL speaks for itself and cannot be denied. Plus that poll was *after* the "Tri vs. Flex" poll and therefore has precedence anyway.

Blkbird's point is a valid one, constitutionally speaking. I vote that we stay with what we have, as the Triumvirate ruleset has gone through an official process and we have spent time electing citizens under it. Add to that that the Flexible ruleset isn't even written yet --- even the Flex sponsor (Ginger_Ale) agrees with that.

I am absolutely beside myself with amazement that no one questioned the results of either ruleset poll. Just think of the mess we could saved ourselves now if someone --- anyone! --- would have taken note of the abundant list of no names supporting the Triumvirate proposal. This could have all been behind us weeks ago.

Oh well. No sense living in the past, I guess. Let's stay with what we have.

I am absolutely beside myself with amazement that no one questioned the results of either ruleset poll. Just think of the mess we could saved ourselves now if someone --- anyone! --- would have taken note of the abundant list of no names supporting the Triumvirate proposal. This could have all been behind us weeks ago.

I don't see how. Passive members are typical for every online community. And by their very nature of passiveness they may tend to have a different opinion than the active ones.

In fact, some of the DL - e. g. Slim_Chance - weren't even passive. This is like the Matrix: If the scam is big enough, it appears real. And the scam is without a doubt big enough. 12 DL, that's a quarter of those who voted in the elections.

I'm rather new to the demogame, in fact I joined up after the Triumvirate government had already been "agreed" upon. I think it is a good Code of Laws, and in the interest of moving forward, it would be easiest if we just stuck with it. However, if someone could kindly point me in the direction of the most complete version of the Flexible government, it would allow me to make my choice without bias. Thanks in advance.

Sigma,

Here's a link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948&page=2) to the discussion on the Flex ruleset. You'll find two fairly detailed proposals, both of which would require minimal tweaking. One was heavily influenced by the concepts in the Triumverate, the other was heavily influenced by the concepts in the Civ 3 DG.

-- Ravensfire

A wolf is not g "proven" guilty, correct?

But the other are? How can this be?

Isn't it perfectly possible that they were the real owners of the eMail and A Wolf is the trepasser. And if this is so shouldn't these other people get just as much time to respond as he does? It does all seem to be quite unfair to those other logins taht A Wolf would get to have a break. It does seem like a rather lucky conisidence that he would stop loging on around the time of the vote boom and the search for it's reason.

This isn't about alphawolf, it's about the government type. We are dealing with Alphawolf as far as the forum rules are concerned. If you want to deal with it in terms of the demogame rules, then do so in the correct thread, not this one.

I would also like to say that their is no wasy that we should try and rush this. WE should start over with every thing we need. That way we do not make mistakes. Virtually all decisions that were made through polls needs to be re polled.
That way we know that everything is done per real account.

I would also like to say that their is no wasy that we should try and rush this. WE should start over with every thing we need. That way we do not make mistakes.

LOL. Trust me, we *will* make mistakes, though unlikely the same ones.

Virtually all decisions that were made through polls needs to be re polled. That way we know that everything is done per real account.

Proper procedure for the sake of proper procedure itself, that's not very rational, in fact that's rather beaurocracy.

LOL. Trust me, we *will* make mistakes, though unlikely the same ones.



Proper procedure for the sake of proper procedure itself, that's not very rational, in fact that's rather beaurocracy.

I rather like beurocracy. And UI do belive that any poll where the difference between winner and second is less then 12 their should be a rePoll. At less we can sift through all of the polls and see who voted what and remove all of their votes and see what they end up being.

Technically according to current BoR I can set up the polls now and their results must be used. I will not do this without more support.

The way I see it, you can be:

- Either practical, in which case proceeding with Tri is the most efficient thing to do;
- Or staying with the principles, in which case you must acknowledge the consitutionality of Tri as the valid and effective Code of Law.

I'm holding my vote to see some rational and logical arguments for the switch. So far I haven't got any.

The way I see it, you can be:

- Either practical, in which case proceeding with Tri is the most efficient thing to do;
- Or staying with the principles, in which case you must acknowledge the consitutionality of Tri as the valid and effective Code of Law.
And sticking with the second one, this is a perfectly legal Poll in which we will be able to legaly switch goverments. Think of tri as the Articles of Federation, and Flexible as the constitution. Both newer and better

And sticking with the second one, this is a perfectly legal Poll in which we will be able to legaly switch goverments.

Agreed. "We should leave Tri as it isn't good enough" is OK, as opposed to "we should leave Tri as it is unconstitutional" (which would be false).

But now you have to prove how *much* better Flex is. In the original poll Flex and Tri has equal chances. Now Tri has the advantage of already being worked out, ratificated through and and voted under. This is a mistrust vote against Tri, much like an impeachment. It isn't enough any more for Flex to be just better, it has to be *much* better - "worth all that trouble", if you will. You can't simply impeach an office holder just because there is a slightly better candidate, either, can you?

And nobody has even *tried* to show just how much better Flex is.

Agreed. "We should leave Tri as it isn't good enough" is OK, as opposed to "we should leave Tri as it is unconstitutional" (which would be false).

But now you have to prove how *much* better Flex is. In the original poll Flex and Tri has equal chances. Now Tri has the advantage of already being worked out and voted under. It isn't enough for Flex any more to be just better, it has to be *much* better - "worth the whole trouble", if you will.

And nobody has even tried to prove that yet.
I can quite honestly not prove that their will be much of a difference with Flex then their is with Tri. BUt I can say that Flexible is just that , FLEXIBLE, it will get better then Tri, and quickly. We can skip useless voteing that we have now and go on with the demogame. IMHO this would be worth waiting till March even.

Changeing to flexible will allow the game to recoil from this much easier. And the fact taht this even happened shows the weeknes that teh Tri. has. It is more proof that it is an inferrior goverment.

We all know my oppinion, we all know your oppinion. What matters isn't what we think. Since our votes cancel out any ways. What matters is that other people think the same way.

I can quite honestly not prove that their will be much of a difference with Flex then their is with Tri. BUt I can say that Flexible is just that , FLEXIBLE, it will get better then Tri, and quickly.

I appreciate your straight-forwardness.

And the fact taht this even happened shows the weeknes that teh Tri. has. It is more proof that it is an inferrior goverment.

You must be kidding! Are you suggesting that poll/election fraud whould have been impossible if Flex had been adopted? Hello?!

And nobody has even *tried* to show just how much better Flex is.

Why do I feel the Flex system is better?

1. Simpler
2. Based on an established ruleset
3. Language is easier to read
4. More accountable
5. Simpler

My biggest issue with the Tri system is the sheer complexity of the entire system. Multiple layers, all of which can overrule other layers, sometimes. Requirements that almost certainly won't be met. I think the provinces section is needlessly complicated, and will cause problems.

If you'd like a longer list of my concerns with the Tri system, review the various Tri threads.

Flex is a simpler system that allows for expansion as needed. It's faster than the Tri system, and puts more power at the local level. It's by far easier to read than the Triumverate system is.

-- Ravensfire

2. Based on an established ruleset

So is Tri, isn't it?

4. More accountable

How?

Flex is a simpler system that allows for expansion as needed. It's faster than the Tri system, and puts more power at the local level. It's by far easier to read than the Triumverate system is.

And that's enough to compensate the cost of switching because...?

You must be kidding! Are you suggesting that poll/election fraud whould have been impossible if Flex had been adopted? Hello?!
I am not saying that it would have been avoided I am saying taht it would have been les of a problem.

I am not saying that it would have been avoided I am saying taht it would have been les of a problem.

How could it be less of a problem?! Doesn't the Prez in Flex have even greater authority than in Tri? And when he is excluded from the game, how much "less" of a problem is it then?

And that is a question I like to ask ravensfire, too: Do you agree with me that the Prez has more power in Flex? If yes, why is that a good thing; if no, why not?

Well, nothing says we have to decide right now. Why don't we start with the Triumviriate and it's already organized government (using normal procedures to fill-in for the absent President), while continuing the discussion of the Flexible ruleset? Work on a new Flexible government can continue concurrently with the game under the Triumvirate. The Flexible plan, when finished, can be submitted as a proposed CoL amendment. If people like it, we make the switch.

Quite frankly, I believed the Flexible to be the best choice, and I still do, but that doesn't say that the Triumviriate doesn't have some good ideas (the duties assigned to the Censor's office, for example, are ones that should have been included a long time ago) - my hope would be that playing with one and working with the other synthesize a better system altogether.

I don't see how. Passive members are typical for every online community. And by their very nature of passiveness they may tend to have a different opinion than the active ones.

In fact, some of the DL - e. g. Slim_Chance - weren't even passive. This is like the Matrix: If the scam is big enough, it appears real. And the scam is without a doubt big enough. 12 DL, that's a quarter of those who voted in the elections.

Perhaps you are correct. It would have taken someone with extrasensory awareness to have predicted something like this over two weeks ago, let alone take the time to investigate and correctly identify who all of the culprits were. In fact, I believe that if a moderator were presented with such evidence at that time, it would have probably been dismissed as some sort of meaningless ruse.

So is Tri, isn't it?
No, it isn't.

How?
Two areas. First, the layout is much simpler. There are too many overlaps in the Tri system, giving leaders built-in excuses. Second, the flex system applies a recall process to all elected officials. The Tri excludes the Judiciary and Governors, meaning terrible leaders can not be removed from office so long as they post every 7 days.

And that's enough to compensate the cost of switching because...?Staying with an inferior system is better because ...?

Do you agree with me that the Prez has more power in Flex? Yes in some area, no in others.

If yes, why is that a good thing; if no, why not?[/quote]
The flex system is based on the ability to create and remove positions, and transfer responsbilities around in a simpler manner than an amendment. This makes it easier to keep the leadership roles clearly defined and useful. By definition, that means that initially the President will have a great many powers that they cannot use (espionage - no spies!). After all, even though the power isn't used, someone must have it.

Ultimately, the Flex President has two powers - slider control and dispute resolution. The other powers from the catch-all phrase (all tasks not assigned to someone else) are there to be given to others as needed and where they make the most sense at the moment.

The Tri system suffers from rigid barriers and limitations guised in the veil of control. In reality, many of those will be ignored, introducing the danger of a citizen seeking to "enforce the rules" and bring things to a halt.

The Triumverate focuses on the process. The Flex focuses on the task.

-- Ravensfire

I am not saying that it would have been avoided I am saying taht it would have been les of a problem.

No, the problem would have been the same. At this point in time, in each system, only a handful of leaders are relevant. Key leaders are the President, the Military leader, Settler leader and the Judiciary. Note that at least 3 of those election (Military and 2 of the 3 Judiciary elections) appear to have been tampered with.

As others have commented, fraud on this scale is nearly unheard of, and dismissed because "nobody would do that!". There are several real-life example, Enron being a partial example. People ARE inherently trustful of others - it's part of our nature.

Indeed, one could use public libraries and open wireless networks to gain access to multiple, radically different IP addresses and perpetuate a fraud that is nearly impossible to detect.

-- Ravensfire

My biggest issue with the Tri system is the sheer complexity of the entire system. Multiple layers, all of which can overrule other layers, sometimes. Requirements that almost certainly won't be met. I think the provinces section is needlessly complicated, and will cause problems.
-- Ravensfire

I actually think the Triumvirate reads well (although a few places might use some more clarity), or mabye I'm just good at reading legalese. However, it seems that most of your other issues could be solved in the form of amendments. With enough passing amendments, the Triumvirate could morph into a mix, but stronger than either would be individually. Is it worth the trouble to scrap a whole Code of Laws, when the same could be acomplished by admentments? Of course I could have missed something that can't just be amended in, so if there's anything, point it out to me.

[...]

The Triumverate focuses on the process. The Flex focuses on the task.

Thanks. And congratulations, as this is the first insightful comparision analysis in this thread.

In response to Blkbird's implied question on why the flex is based on an "established ruleset" and tri is not...

The assertion is that the flex system is based on the Civ3 DG system, which has been basically unchanged for 6 of the 7 DG's. This makes it "established" in comparison to tri, which has not been used in a previous DG.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it an "experienced" ruleset. ;)

Correct. I very much agree with ravensfire (nice answers!) in his '5 ways Flex is better'. One of the strongest points is that, as DaveShack says, it is experienced. When you base it off something that works, not only do you know that it won't fail (or is very likely to), you know that you can add and modify it and it will still be a sturdy ruleset that will stand up to the challenge.

edit: Now I'm leaning towards changing my vote...we'll see.

I am the future, read your post at the top of this page (post 42).

Did everyone forget about the Secretary of War election? :lol: I lost!

More importantly, please read the second and third paragraphs of my concession speech. If we are going to consider changing to the flex govenment, let's do it using our legal powers instead of resting on the laurels of moderator actions. It shouldn't be that tough to do. Plus it will allow us to get the game started.

Let's vote Option #1 while we offer amendments in the Citizens Forum. Then we can actually start playing the game.

People of our nation,

I would like to extend my congratulations to Chieftess for her 11th hour victory in this election. What remains to be seen is whether this poll will even be valid in the eyes of the people.

With that being said, I would like to encourage all citizens to support the Triumvirate ruleset in this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152528). This is now our ratified law of the land and therefore, it should require legal, not forum, action to change this.

As an original supporter of the Flexible ruleset, I can state that this isn't a tough decision for me. The Triumvirate ruleset is up and ready to go, so we should work to make changes from within. There is nothing stopping us from gradually transitioning from one ruleset to the other via the amendment process.

I would like to thank all of my supporters for making this another close race. As I have said before, you are in good military hands with Chieftess. I now plan to spend my free time pursuing some of the legal aspects of our dilemma, based on our current ruleset. As far as I am concerned, the show shall go on as planned, regardless of this incident.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi

It still has 27 hours. Anything can happen...

I still prefer the flexible and always will, the Triumvirate is way to complicated, plus this is what the people wanted. Everyone can argue that the ratifacation poll proves that the people wanted Triumvirate, but it doesn't, people voted that to get the game started abd because it was thought a majority wanted it.

I think we should start on Feb. 1 with new elections. 3-4 elections were bad, we don't have a president, and if we choose Flexible it needs to be polished and ratified.

Btw, it doesn't matter that the Triumvirate is already passed, we can just ratify the Flexible to take its place, I think...

I still prefer the flexible and always will.........

Btw, it doesn't matter that the Triumvirate is already passed, we can just ratify the Flexible to take its place, I think...

You think? I never expected to see a lack of objectivity cloud your rational judgment before looking at all the facts, Black_Hole. I am very disappointed. :( If we allow the moderators to make our decision for us here, then we may as well forfeit to them all of our toilet paper as well.

We don't need this crutch, people. Rise up and vote to make your own decision in this matter under our current law, no matter which government you preferred!

Everyone can argue that the ratifacation poll proves that the people wanted Triumvirate, but it doesn't, people voted that to get the game started abd because it was thought a majority wanted it.

I, too, am very disappointed to read those kinds of words from someone who led a good campagn for the Public Defender position. When a legislative decision is made (like in this case), *why* it was made is no longer of significance. The only thing that matters is the fact that is *has* been made.

Since the ratification of our current CoL (which is Tri 6.2) is constitutionally binding for us, the CoL are already in effect. The only way we can switch to Flex without violating our Consititution is by making the switch a CoL amendment (where the whole CoL is being "amended"). That requires 60% of votes (CoL 10.A.I) and a set of proper procedures (CoL 10.B.I-V) - but I'm certain most of those who supports an immediate switch disagree with that.

What we are seeing here is that a lot people are willing to "bend" the Constitution. I admit they have strong reasons to do so, but personally I have a problem with that.

Without a trial alphawolf is still innocent. Also the Triumvirate worked and all of you were content, until the opening came for you to leap in and use Alphawolfs suspected cheating as a way to relaunch your polictical theory which has been incorporated into a government that you supported and were elected to! This oppurtunism is appalling!:eek: If Alphawolf did perpatate such acts, then he is wrong. But All of us put our ideas into the Tri! It is not Alpha's gov but OUR GOVERNMENT. WE had the final say in it, not only alphawolf. Ravenfire and Future, you should be ashamed, ashamed of the lack of morals you have showed through this. Why must we allow ourselve to be further injured by this ordeal! We must carry on, we must not be weakened. We cannot, cannot, canNOT allow ourselves to give up on this foundation, we must only strengthen it, and in time we must build upon it. You who support the trashing of the Tri would only seek to tear down all we have done. You would seek to give up after falling down, you would seek to crawl away to an easier fight. We must perservear in this troubled time. We cannot give up on months of work. We cannot throw elected officials out of their RIGHTFUL positions. We must not be struck down by the tide of deceit, but we must weather the storm and survive it. We must not spit on the wounded in this ordeal and then usurp them, but instead we must help them up, and with this act you help the whole demogame. We must not drop evrything we are doing, everything we have done because of accusations. We must continue, having learned our lesson from this, we must continue to be the Demogame we have come to love. I urge all of you not to give up, not to give in to barbarism and oppurtunism, but i urge you to stand strong and tall and not but barreled over by those who would seek to use this game for there own game. Whether through DL's or other ways we must not give up, we must continue on, we must, must vote to keep the triumvirate!

I, too, am very disappointed to read those kinds of words from someone who led a good campagn for the Public Defender position. When a legislative decision is made (like in this case), *why* it was made is no longer of significance. The only thing that matters is the fact that is *has* been made.

Since the ratification of our current CoL (which is Tri 6.2) is constitutionally binding for us, the CoL are already in effect. The only way we can switch to Flex without violating our Consititution is by making the switch a CoL amendment (where the whole CoL is being "amended"). That requires 60% of votes (CoL 10.A.I) and a set of proper procedures (CoL 10.B.I-V) - but I'm certain most of those who supports an immediate switch disagree with that.

What we are seeing here is that a lot people are willing to "bend" the Constitution. I admit they have strong reasons to do so, but personally I have a problem with that.

You think? I never expected to see a lack of objectivity cloud your rational judgment before looking at all the facts, Black_Hole. I am very disappointed. :( If we allow the moderators to make our decision for us here, then we may as well forfeit to them all of our toilet paper as well.

We don't need this crutch, people. Rise up and vote to make your own decision in this matter under our current law, no matter which government you preferred!


this is what I meant, but wasn't very clear, we basically amend the entire current CoL to make it the Flexible government, I understand the current CoL is binding, but it can be changed, which should be done.

So if flexible wins, the Flexible government is touched up, we need to get 60% of voters to support it, then the Triumvirate is replaced with it, there is nothing illegal with this

I never meant to say this poll would switch the government, but if Flexible does win we should begin polishing the Flexible and get it ready for an official CoL vote

Without a trial alphawolf is still innocent. Also the Triumvirate worked and all of you were content, until the opening came for you to leap in and use Alphawolfs suspected cheating as a way to relaunch your polictical theory which has been incorporated into a government that you supported and were elected to! This oppurtunism is appalling!:eek: If Alphawolf did perpatate such acts, then he is wrong. But All of us put our ideas into the Tri! It is not Alpha's gov but OUR GOVERNMENT. WE had the final say in it, not only alphawolf. Ravenfire and Future, you should be ashamed, ashamed of the lack of morals you have showed through this. Why must we allow ourselve to be further injured by this ordeal! We must carry on, we must not be weakened. We cannot, cannot, canNOT allow ourselves to give up on this foundation, we must only strengthen it, and in time we must build upon it. You who support the trashing of the Tri would only seek to tear down all we have done. You would seek to give up after falling down, you would seek to crawl away to an easier fight. We must perservear in this troubled time. We cannot give up on months of work. We cannot throw elected officials out of their RIGHTFUL positions. We must not be struck down by the tide of deceit, but we must weather the storm and survive it. We must not spit on the wounded in this ordeal and then usurp them, but instead we must help them up, and with this act you help the whole demogame. We must not drop evrything we are doing, everything we have done because of accusations. We must continue, having learned our lesson from this, we must continue to be the Demogame we have come to love. I urge all of you not to give up, not to give in to barbarism and oppurtunism, but i urge you to stand strong and tall and not but barreled over by those who would seek to use this game for there own game. Whether through DL's or other ways we must not give up, we must continue on, we must, must vote to keep the triumvirate!
If indeed 12 of the votes in polls came from the same person, then its not the government everyone intially wanted

I never meant to say this poll would switch the government, but if Flexible does win we should begin polishing the Flexible and get it ready for an official CoL vote

OK, but that can take quite some time, as our Code of Law is a little bit amendment-ressistant. Section 10.B specifies:

Steps to Amend the Code of Laws

I. A Citizen posts an idea about the amendment as a thread.

II. Amendment is debated in the thread.

III. After at least 48hours the proponent posts a proposed poll.

IV. Once 24 hours have passed with no significant comments to the thread poll, the issue goes to the Judiciary for review.

V. If and after Judicial Review passes, the ratification poll is posted by the Judiciary.

So, starting the game now with the current CoL and continues to debate about switching to Flex would be the only way to avoid an indefinite delay.

If indeed 12 of the votes in polls came from the same person, then its not the government everyone intially wanted

Emphasize on "initially" here. What everyone *initially* wanted doesn't matter, what matters is what everyone *finally* accepted. The ratification was the final acceptance, and that precedes everything before it.

In retrospect, the process by which the Tri got accepted as CoL violated common customes, in so far that it hasn't been the first choice as a draft. But the process hasn't violated the Constitution, because contrary to the common customes, our Consitution doesn't prohibits ratification of CoL whose draft has not been the first choice. How common customes (from which a "right of custome" can be deduced in most existing judiciary systems in the world, I know) should be weighted against the Consitution is a decision for the Judiciary Review Board. Personally I have to give the Constitution the priority. Because even if we accept the idea of "right of custome", it would be the lowest form of right among all rights, while the CoL is the second highest form of right and therefore should only be judged upon by the Consitution (and constitutinoally established institutions, if existing).

OK, but that can take quite some time, as our Code of Law is a little bit amendment-ressistant. Section 10.B specifies:



So, starting the game now with the current CoL and continues to debate about switching to Flex would be the only way to avoid an indefinite delay.
I stated we should have the game start by Feb.1 ,which gives us plenty of time for the entire CoL amendment procedure

I also understand it doesn't violate the constitution, but that doesn't mean we can't change it

I stated we should have the game start by Feb.1 ,which gives us plenty of time for the entire CoL amendment procedure

First, I don't see why we should wait for 3 weeks; second, there is no way to estimate how long it takes until "there is no significant comment" coming in any more in the poll thread, as specified in CoL 10.B.IV.

First, I don't see why we should wait for 3 weeks; second, there is no way to estimate how long it takes until "there is no significant comment" coming in any more in the poll thread, as specified in CoL 10.B.IV.
We should wait 3 weeks so we can have new elections, and elections would start around the 21st anyway, so thats 14 days away... it could take 14 days to polish, the flexible, and get the CoL amended... plus the more time the better it will come out

We should wait 3 weeks so we can have new elections, and elections would start around the 21st anyway

Why?

You keep saying "should", and I can't follow your reasoning because you don't provide any.

We should wait 3 weeks so we can have new elections, and elections would start around the 21st anyway, so thats 14 days away... it could take 14 days to polish, the flexible, and get the CoL amended... plus the more time the better it will come out

Regardless of how you want to bring about the Flexible ruleset, I have to make one thing clear. If you want to change to a Flexible ruleset via amendment, then you must vote now to go on with Triumvirate ruleset. Because that is essentially what we would be doing. We would be going on with this ruleset until it is changed in our laws.

Now, if you want to take our citizenry out of the equation and let the moderators decide on the Flexible ruleset for us, only then should you vote for Flexible. I am pretty sure that this is how the moderators will be interpreting these results.

So, which is it, Black_Hole? Do you wish to circumvent our current law, or do you wish to switch your vote to the option that truly supports your stance?

Regardless of how you want to bring about the Flexible ruleset, I have to make one thing clear. If you want to change to a Flexible ruleset via amendment, then you must vote now to go on with Triumvirate ruleset. Because that is essentially what we would be doing. We would be going on with this ruleset until it is changed in our laws.

Now, if you want to take our citizenry out of the equation and let the moderators decide on the Flexible ruleset for us, only then should you vote for Flexible. I am pretty sure that this is how the moderators will be interpreting these results.

So, which is it, Black_Hole? Do you wish to circumvent our current law, or do you wish to switch your vote to the option that truly supports your stance?

Very clear words, DZ. This makes up my mind, I'm voting now.

Why?

You keep saying "should", and I can't follow your reasoning because you don't provide any.
First off, this is if flexible wins this poll:
We need time to finish this poll, edit the flexible gov, and amend the CoL... By then there are only 5 or so days till elections would start, so why not just wait?
Plus we need new elections anyway, if we have new positions...

First off, this is if flexible wins this poll:

You're running in circles. You're arguing *for* the switch to Flex under the assumption that it would prevail in this poll. That's a major flaw of logic.

You're running in circles. You're arguing *for* the switch to Flex under the assumption that it would prevail in this poll. That's a major flaw of logic.
no, have you read my past 3 posts?
I am saying that if flexible wins we should start on Feb.1, not right away

no, have you read my past 3 posts?
I am saying that if flexible wins we should start on Feb.1, not right away

So, you are then voting to let the moderators make our decisions for us. Thanks for clearing that up.

I am an American. I am well versed in American Government. Please be aware of that, I am not basing my reasoning because I think it is the best, it's because it is the one I know the best. Ok, here I go.

It is past Jan 1st, when the Tri gov was to come to power. Therefore, the Tri gov is in power right now. I believe we should continue approching everything under this assumption.

If we want to move to Flex gov, we should have the power to do so. But until the Flex gov is ready to rule, the Tri gov should remain in place and continue to function. This happened to the American Gov. When they realized they needed to change it, they waited until they had the Constitution written and signed before they ended the Articles of Conf.

Even discounting their multiple votes, we voted AlphaWolf our President. Using the assumption that the Tri gov is still governing, AlphaWolf is our current President. We should probably think about recalling or impeaching him. Not saying he is guilty. He is not here doing his duty as President, so we need to start the process of replacing him. Or we could treat it as if he had a medical problem and just let the Secs rule until a new President is elected.

I know we could just delay the game start and re-do our entire government system. But I don't think it would be as much fun. We have a unique opprotunity to simmulate the struggle of creating a working democratic government in a real-time enviroment. In real life, countries can't delay their starts or turns while they set up their government. The rest of the Civs would be able to strart building themselves up while we hashed this out. I think it's ok if we don't have as many play sessions as normal, but I don't think we should completely stop. I feel it would make a more dynamic Democracy if the government was changed so much while the game was going on. Am I wrong, or are most Demo games set up with a set government that isn't changed the whole game. This could set a precedent for future games in which the citizens feel the constitution and government no longer fit into their current game.

I know I'm actually kind of excited to have to work through this hardship while still trying to build a new Civ. I also feel that many people who want to play cIV Demo would find this challenge fun.

Just my thoughts on the situation and what we should do with our government.

no, have you read my past 3 posts?
I am saying that if flexible wins we should start on Feb.1, not right away

Well you didn't exactly say "in case Flex wins this poll" (in post #65 of this thread), did you? You only said "we should start...", and it's anything but obvious that you meant "we should start ... in case Flex wins" - I interpreted it as "we should start ... because Flex should win".

So, you are then voting to let the moderators make our decisions for us. Thanks for clearing that up.
If we vote on something, its not the moderators making the decision for us
Any citizen could request that we scrap the entire CoL, they might be thought of as crazy however
The moderators have brought forward evidence that citizens do not have access to and asking us to vote over it... They aren't making the decision for us

I know we could just delay the game start and re-do our entire government system. But I don't think it would be as much fun. We have a unique opprotunity to simmulate the struggle of creating a working democratic government in a real-time enviroment. In real life, countries can't delay their starts or turns while they set up their government. The rest of the Civs would be able to strart building themselves up while we hashed this out. I think it's ok if we don't have as many play sessions as normal, but I don't think we should completely stop. I feel it would make a more dynamic Democracy if the government was changed so much while the game was going on. Am I wrong, or are most Demo games set up with a set government that isn't changed the whole game. This could set a precedent for future games in which the citizens feel the constitution and government no longer fit into their current game.

Wonderful and excellent arguments. :goodjob:

If we vote on something, its not the moderators making the decision for us
Any citizen could request that we scrap the entire CoL, they might be thought of as crazy however
The moderators have brought forward evidence that citizens do not have access to and asking us to vote over it... They aren't making the decision for us

OK, let me put it another way. What binding does this poll have over our current law? All it is asking is an informal question without regard to how it is carried out. It gives us no chance to resolve this crisis ourselves, but instead gives us a quick fix to scrap everything we have done to this point. We almost unanimously ratified this amendment, so I am appalled to see so many leaping toward the easy way out to get rid of it based on this evidence.

Everyone, please read this post in its entirety. It explains our situation better than I ever could:

I am an American. I am well versed in American Government. Please be aware of that, I am not basing my reasoning because I think it is the best, it's because it is the one I know the best. Ok, here I go.

It is past Jan 1st, when the Tri gov was to come to power. Therefore, the Tri gov is in power right now. I believe we should continue approching everything under this assumption.

If we want to move to Flex gov, we should have the power to do so. But until the Flex gov is ready to rule, the Tri gov should remain in place and continue to function. This happened to the American Gov. When they realized they needed to change it, they waited until they had the Constitution written and signed before they ended the Articles of Conf.

Even discounting their multiple votes, we voted AlphaWolf our President. Using the assumption that the Tri gov is still governing, AlphaWolf is our current President. We should probably think about recalling or impeaching him. Not saying he is guilty. He is not here doing his duty as President, so we need to start the process of replacing him. Or we could treat it as if he had a medical problem and just let the Secs rule until a new President is elected.

I know we could just delay the game start and re-do our entire government system. But I don't think it would be as much fun. We have a unique opprotunity to simmulate the struggle of creating a working democratic government in a real-time enviroment. In real life, countries can't delay their starts or turns while they set up their government. The rest of the Civs would be able to strart building themselves up while we hashed this out. I think it's ok if we don't have as many play sessions as normal, but I don't think we should completely stop. I feel it would make a more dynamic Democracy if the government was changed so much while the game was going on. Am I wrong, or are most Demo games set up with a set government that isn't changed the whole game. This could set a precedent for future games in which the citizens feel the constitution and government no longer fit into their current game.

I know I'm actually kind of excited to have to work through this hardship while still trying to build a new Civ. I also feel that many people who want to play cIV Demo would find this challenge fun.

Just my thoughts on the situation and what we should do with our government.

Excellent post, GeorgeOP! :goodjob:

Any citizen could request that we scrap the entire CoL, they might be thought of as crazy however

"Scraping the entire CoL", as you put it, would be simply illegal - even if *all* citizens votes for it. The only way to do that would be to amend the Constitution first - which, think of it, is far more efficient than amend the whole CoL itself.

So, legally, this is poll here cannot be binding. It's just an informational decision about the coming *process*.

If the Flex wins (which I hope not), I suggest the following procedure:

1. Amend our Constitution to allow complete replacement of CoL under certain circumstances, at the same time finetune the Flex;
2. Replace the CoL in accordance with the new Constitutional Amendment;
3. Start election process.

OK, let me put it another way. What binding does this poll have over our current law? All it is asking is an informal question without regard to how it is carried out. It gives us no chance to resolve this crisis ourselves, but instead gives us a quick fix to scrap everything we have done to this point. We almost unanimously ratified this amendment, so I am appalled to see so many leaping toward the easy way out to get rid of it based on this evidence.
I agree here, this poll is informational, however if Flexible wins, we should begin work on the flexible government, and then amend the CoL in an official poll

What I mean by scrapping is that the entire CoL gets replaced in a single amendment

I agree here, this poll is informational, however if Flexible wins, we should begin work on the flexible government, and then amend the CoL in an official poll

What I mean by scrapping is that the entire CoL gets replaced in a single amendment

Yes, but it won't be seen as informational by our mods --- it will be seen as a vote to negate this entire term and start February 1st, like you said. I am telling you how I feel it should be seen as under our current rule of law. As far as I am concerned this term is very much alive, so a vote for Flexible will merely tear down what could be an awesome way to start the game.

A vote for Flexible here is a vote against our own governance, and a vote to cop out of our responsibility as citizens. I plan to play this scenario out as if we are still under the Triumvirate ruleset until I am forced not to do so by those who can't see this for themselves.

I agree here, this poll is informational, however if Flexible wins, we should begin work on the flexible government, and then amend the CoL in an official poll

As I noted in my post above, it would be much more efficient (and much cleaner, too) to amend the Constitution to allow a "complete scraping" of the CoL.

Yes, but it won't be seen as informational by our mods --- it will be seen as a vote to negate this entire term and start February 1st, like you said. I am telling you how I feel it should be seen as under our current rule of law. As far as I am concerned this term is very much alive, so a vote for Flexible will merely tear down what could be an awesome way to start the game.

A vote for Flexible here is a vote against our own governance, and a vote to cop out of our responsibility as citizens. I plan to play this scenario out as if we are still under the Triumvirate ruleset until I am forced not to do so by those who can't see this for themselves.
if this wasn't meant to be informaitional, then I apologize... I was under the understanding, this would replace the informational polls called "Which government should we work on?"

I also like to go on record to point out that our currently elected Judiciary Branch cannot be declared void as it is not defined by the CoL (Tri), but by the Constitution itself (Article F). The CoL only detailed the specs of the Constitution. So even if we switch to Flex, the three members of the Judiciary Branch must stay in their respective positions.

Given the above, I'm requesting a Judiciary Review (as defined in Constitution F.2 and F.4.a) of the current situation.

As I noted in my post above, it would be much more efficient (and much cleaner, too) to amend the Constitution to allow a "complete scraping" of the CoL.
theres no need, we can just amend the entire CoL as per the current amendment article... It would be harder to amend the Constitution anyway...

Wow, thank you Donovan!

if this wasn't meant to be informaitional, then I apologize... I was under the understanding, this would replace the informational polls called "Which government should we work on?"

If we look at this poll as a "starting over" point, then we are setting ourselves back for weeks. I would like our current government to contiinue to function while this dilemma unfolds.

If we vote for Flexible, then we vote to start over from that fateful poll three weeks ago. As if nothing ever happened; as if no law was ever ratified; as if no one was ever elected. Are you sure that is what you want?

theres no need, we can just amend the entire CoL as per the current amendment article... It would be harder to amend the Constitution anyway...

No, absolutely not!

Have you read the current CoL, specificly the Section 10 I quote above? That's a much more complicated procedure than what's required to amend the Consitution, which is defined in the Constitution itself:

Article G, 2. The Constitution may be amended by a 60% majority of votes cast in a public poll which shall be open for no fewer than 4 days.

a. A lower form of law may specify a procedure which must be followed to amend the Constitution.

Our current CoL doesn't specify any further procedure regarding the amendment of Constitution, so amending the Constitution is far simpler than following the CoL 10.B.I-V (both require 60% of votes, btw).

I start to really question your ability as a veteran of the judiciary branch...

A former request for Judiciary Review has been filed by me:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3545826#post3546124

No, absolutely not!

Have you read the current CoL, specificly the Section 10 I quote above? That's a much more complicated procedure than what's required to amend the Consitution, which is defined in the Constitution itself:



Our current CoL doesn't specify any further procedure regarding the amendment of Constitution, so amending the Constitution is far simpler than following the CoL 10.B.I-V (both require 60% of votes, btw).

I start to really question your ability as a veteran of the judiciary branch...
Your own arguments go against you!
They are both the same difficulty, correct?
So why have to amend the constitution, to amend the CoL? That means 2 amendment polls, instead of one... Which is more complicated in my opinon, maybe you think differently?

Your own arguments go against you!
They are both the same difficulty, correct?
So why have to amend the constitution, to amend the CoL? That means 2 amendment polls, instead of one... Which is more complicated in my opinon, maybe you think differently?

What?!?

1. Both amendment require 60% of votes.
2. Amendment of CoL requires further more a comprehensive discussion before and during the voting, plus a manditory judiciary review process afterwards; amendment of Constitution requiere nothing of that kind (it does allow a judiciary review, of course, if requested by any citizen).
3. If we amend the Constitution to allow replacement of CoL under certain circumstances, we don't need to amend the current CoL any more.
4. Amendment of Constitution has higher authority and is therefore cleaner.

So, it's one single, lengthy, low-priority amendment against one single, quick, high-priority amendment.

There, I can't be more clear than that. If you still don't get it, I can't help it any more.

Btw, do you even read the Constitution and the CoL???

What?!?

1. Both amendment require 60% of votes.
2. Amendment of CoL requires further more a comprehensive discussion before and during the voting, plus a manditory judiciary review process afterwards; amendment of Constitution requiere nothing of that kind (it does allow a judiciary review, of course, if requested by any citizen).
3. If we amend the Constitution to allow replacement of CoL under certain circumstances, we don't need to amend the current CoL any more.
4. Amendment of Constitution has higher authority and is therefore cleaner.

So, it's one single, lengthy, low-priority amendment against one single, quick, high-priority amendment.

There, I can't be more clear than that. If you still don't get it, I can't help it any more.

Btw, do you even read the Constitution and the CoL???
There are two choices following your idea:
1. We add an article to the Constituion allowing someone to change the CoL at their whim in "certain circumstances"
2. We allow the CoL to be changed in a poll in "certain circumstances"
3. We change the CoL in the Consitution, which is completely stupid

I hope you are meaning #2, and if so we still need another poll...

Why can't we just amend the Code of Laws???
It doesn't need to be that complicated, we don't need to add "under certain circumstances" clauses to the constitution, we just simply amend the Code of Laws...

Btw, I do not insult you in anyway and it would be nice if you returned the favor

If we look at this poll as a "starting over" point, then we are setting ourselves back for weeks. I would like our current government to contiinue to function while this dilemma unfolds.

If we vote for Flexible, then we vote to start over from that fateful poll three weeks ago. As if nothing ever happened; as if no law was ever ratified; as if no one was ever elected. Are you sure that is what you want?
Yes, we shouldn't have the course of the game changed because of this problem

If flexible wins we could continue playing this term, then have the flexible ready by next term...
My concern with this is that one aspect will detract from another, and either the game or the new Code of Laws will not be given the attention it needs

Technically the current government is still in power can could play, but I would like it if they had the courtesy to delay the game.

Let's cool this thread down a bit.

As for whether this poll represents a moderator action or not, I'd say it does not truly represent a moderator action. A moderator posted it alright, but it is obvious that they do not want to just impose a ruling, or they would have just said the Tri ratification vote is nullified, inside mod tags, and that would be the end of it other than the inevitable warnings and bans.

What I do think this poll represents, is a referendum on whether we want to go ahead and launch the game using the ratified Tri, or if we want to delay the start by following the timetable I mentioned in a previous post.

This poll ends
If triumvirate wins, then we address the situation under current laws, and launch the game when we can.
If flexible wins, then we have more work to do
As much time as necessary to gather comments and edit (optimistically budgeted as 3 days)
4 days for ratification
3 days for nominations
3 days for elections
start date approx 2 weeks from now, optimistically On the Judiciary:

No matter which way this poll goes, the Judiciary is ratified in the Constitution, which is not under scrutiny. If the vote is to discard the Tri then the Judiciary would operate under the Constitution alone, if Tri is reaffirmed then the court would operate under the Constitution + CoL. Unless there is a moderator post overturning this reading of the current status of the Judiciary, then we will proceed with hearing any cases which are brought before us.

To reiterate what was previously announced regarding the elections, the Court is currently:
CJ : DaveShack
JA : donsig
PD : Ravensfire

Let's cool this thread down a bit.

As for whether this poll represents a moderator action or not, I'd say it does not truly represent a moderator action. A moderator posted it alright, but it is obvious that they do not want to just impose a ruling, or they would have just said the Tri ratification vote is nullified, inside mod tags, and that would be the end of it other than the inevitable warnings and bans.

What I do think this poll represents, is a referendum on whether we want to go ahead and launch the game using the ratified Tri, or if we want to delay the start by following the timetable I mentioned in a previous post.

This poll ends
If triumvirate wins, then we address the situation under current laws, and launch the game when we can.
If flexible wins, then we have more work to do
As much time as necessary to gather comments and edit (optimistically budgeted as 3 days)
4 days for ratification
3 days for nominations
3 days for elections
start date approx 2 weeks from now, optimistically On the Judiciary:

No matter which way this poll goes, the Judiciary is ratified in the Constitution, which is not under scrutiny. If the vote is to discard the Tri then the Judiciary would operate under the Constitution alone, if Tri is reaffirmed then the court would operate under the Constitution + CoL. Unless there is a moderator post overturning this reading of the current status of the Judiciary, then we will proceed with hearing any cases which are brought before us.

To reiterate what was previously announced regarding the elections, the Court is currently:
CJ : DaveShack
JA : donsig
PD : Ravensfire
even if Flexible wins, the Triumvirate isn't out, we need an official CoL amendment poll to take it out

even if Flexible wins, the Triumvirate isn't out, we need an official CoL amendment poll to take it out

That might be one of the things the Judiciary is called to rule upon.

That might be one of the things the Judiciary is called to rule upon.
A simple vote isn't enough to overrturn the CoL, we need to start the amendment proccess, if flexible wins

There are two choices following your idea:
1. We add an article to the Constituion allowing someone to change the CoL at their whim in "certain circumstances"
2. We allow the CoL to be changed in a poll in "certain circumstances"
3. We change the CoL in the Consitution, which is completely stupid

I hope you are meaning #2, and if so we still need another poll...

[...]

Btw, I do not insult you in anyway and it would be nice if you returned the favor

You're right, I apologize for my mistake. And yes, I did meant "#2", but of course I didn't suggest writing "under certain circumstances" into the Constitution, but rather specific definition of circumstances (like, for instance, when the CoL is based on a draft which has not been the choice of the majority).

Why can't we just amend the Code of Laws???

Because the delay can be indefinite. Could you give me an estimate (with supporting facts and/or arguments) of how long we'll have to wait until there is "no significant comments to the [amendment] thread poll", as required in the current CoL 10.B.IV?

Can someone tell me when this poll is supposed to close? I'd like to vote in it but it seems to be a public poll and since it appears I'm on the Judiciary I hesitate to vote. Wondering how much time I have to decide if I should even vote or hold off.

Can someone tell me when this poll is supposed to close? I'd like to vote in it but it seems to be a public poll and since it appears I'm on the Judiciary I hesitate to vote. Wondering how much time I have to decide if I should even vote or hold off.

I've asking this, but eihter Rik nor Chieftess has answered it so far.

I made the poll. Since it is a very abnormal and unusual poll due to an unusual situation, it has no closing date. It will be closed when everyone has had a chance to think about it. I thought that that was important in this case.

But if you prefer, we can close it on a specific date.

I made the poll. Since it is a very abnormal and unusual poll due to an unusual situation, it has no closing date. It will be closed when everyone has had a chance to think about it. I thought that that was important in this case.

But if you prefer, we can close it on a specific date.

I understand this completely, but maybe you can say something like:

- When it will close earliest
- How many hours/days ahead you will inform us about the closing time

The point is that people who may be absent in the coming days should be able to know if they can wait for more discussion to happen, or should rather vote now before it's too late.

Although I do have the impression that the discussion so far has been pretty advanced already, and I don't expect any brand new angle to appear from which we haven't look at the matter yet.

Fair points.

This poll was created Saturday 00:00 GMT. This poll will not close before 4 days after. So it will not close before Wednesday 00:00 GMT.

Closure-date / time will be notified at least 24 hours before.

ok ?

CoL
IV. Vacancies

IVA. A Vacancy occurs when an office is empty due to one of the following reasons:...
if the office holder is removed from office by the Judiciary if said office holder is absent for more than 7 days without the office holder posting notification.

IVB. ...Should the Presidency be the vacant office the Secretary of State shall take over the duties of the President.

The CoL was ratified and is in effect. Therefore, the Judiciary should rule the President absent (assuming he doesn't show up soon). There is no President until the next election cycle. The Sec of State should assume the powers of the Presidency until the new term starts (which I can't find anything in the CoL or Constitution that define a term).

Blah, I am very upset with this. Alphawolf (Not accusing him) is the one who nominated me. Perhaps he "helped" me win. This all leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I voted flexible, I feel like we need a FRESH start.

Emphasize on "initially" here. What everyone *initially* wanted doesn't matter, what matters is what everyone *finally* accepted. The ratification was the final acceptance, and that precedes everything before it.


Huge problem - what was finally accepted was the fruit of a fraudulent decision. There was fraud in that initial election. Eliminate the fraud, and an entirely different decision results.

Quite honestly, I will go with the results of this poll. If Triumverate is selected, I will assume that's the preference of the people, and offer no amendments to it. I will speak my mind should others do so, but my focus will be on the interpretation of the existing ruleset, not on changing that ruleset.

The core of the Tri system is the elaborate structure and controls built into it. Take that away, and you have something quite similar to the Flex system, except with the clear deliniation in power between the Triumverate and the other positions.

I will be satisfied with either option winning, we need to make this decision and start moving on.

-- Ravensfire

Huge problem - what was finally accepted was the fruit of a fraudulent decision. There was fraud in that initial election. Eliminate the fraud, and an entirely different decision results.

The colorful language ("fruit") isn't helping here - it's misleading. The indirect result of something fraudulent isn't automatically fraudulent itself, just as the logical conclusion of a false statement still can be true.

As I've stated in a previous comment, *why* and *how* Tri was brought to the ratification process doesn't matter when judging its validaty as CoL. The ratification itself is what finally counts.

The colorful language ("fruit") isn't helping here - it's misleading. The indirect result of something fraudulent isn't automatically fraudulent itself, just as the logical conclusion of a false statement still can be true.

As I've stated in a previous comment, *why* and *how* Tri was brought to the ratification process doesn't matter when judging its validaty as CoL. The ratification itself is what finally counts.

Incorrect. The language "fruit" would be the legal concept of "fruit of the forbidden tree". That is, you should not benefit from doing something wrong. In this case, the selection of Triumverate as the basis for our ruleset was clearly stated to be wrong. The ratification is simply a decision of "Does this look good to you". Implicit in that is the presumption that this was the ruleset that the people chose. We did not.

This poll, this vote now, is the decision points of which ruleset to use. The selection for Triumverate includes the additional provision of "Use what ya got." The Flex system didn't go through the several days of review and ratification because it was unjustly denied that process.

We ratified a ruleset based on fraud.

-- Ravensfire

We ratified a ruleset based on fraud.

This is a liguistic trick, and I can't tell if you're doing it intentionally, but in any case I have to make it clear: Depending on if "based on fraud" is refering to "ratified" or "ruleset", your assertion can be true or false.

The ratification may have been due to a fraud, but the ruleset itself is not based on fraud at all. The ruleset would only be "based on fraud" if it contains backdoor, intentionally planted flaws for a later exploitation. There is nothing of that kind (unless you show me, that is), so the ruleset itself is not foul or evil - even if what you said above suggest it were.

Incorrect. The language "fruit" would be the legal concept of "fruit of the forbidden tree". That is, you should not benefit from doing something wrong.....

We ratified a ruleset based on fraud.

-- Ravensfire

It looks like your vote is another vote for moderators to solve our Constitutional crisis.

Is this "fruit" you speak of a legitimate legal concept, or has the Old Testament been ratified as law? :confused:

This poll, this vote now, is the decision points of which ruleset to use. The selection for Triumverate includes the additional provision of "Use what ya got."

Once again, you vote for handing control of our situation over to the mods should Flexible win. Is that because you know that Flexible may not reach the 60% needed to amend the Triumvirate to oblivion? Doing so certainly doesn't have that support now, if that is how you are interpreting this poll. So, to me your stance flys in the face of a self-sufficient government. You want us to take our citizens out of the equation in regards to fixing this.

Perhaps we should require Flexible to receive 60% of the vote here before we allow it to be scrapped outside the realm of our current law. :lol:

Well, I'm very disappointed about what I read here, but nevertheless there's no necessity to re-invent the wheel, I mean to go through the whole review and wiping out of errors again with the flex-government!

Regardless of the fact that the win of the tri-gov was illegal, I currently would vote for the tri again simply because I believe it is the better government!!!

But maybe we're comparing peaches and apples here...

I don't wanna delay anything anymore but OTOH wouldn't it be more fair to make a run-off poll between the tri and the flex after giving the flex-supporters time to review and work out the ruleset as thorough as it had been done for the tri-government... Maybe things will look different then. So my suggestion would be: Let the supporters of the flex (I'm not one of them) state how much time they would need to work the ruleset out and THEN let's compare and pick the better one!

For now the better one is still the tri-gov, IMHO...

Allow me to provide an example which I think encompasses this situation pretty well...

Your favorite sandwich is a turkey sandwich, and you ask me to make you one. I decide to make you a ham sandwich instead, maybe because I think you'll like it more (the reason doesn't really matter). You take a bite and immediately realize it's not what you asked for. Yet you continue eating, and it grows on you, and by the time you're done it's your new favorite sandwich.

The moral of this story: if you had thrown it back after the first bite, you never would have grown to like it.

The difference with our situation is that we've already grown to like our sandwich, but now some people want to throw it back with only 2 bites left! We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate when we ratified it overwhelmingly, and even if it's not perfect, we can always amend it. Completely scrapping it and starting over will dishearten many players, many of whom have already been disheartened enough by the recent controversy. If the public does favor the flexible government, then we should at least keep the Triumvirate, and amend the parts of flexible that we like into it.

(Note: My philosophy class made me pretty good at coming up with examples. I'm prepared to defend it and explain better how this ties into the current situation if need be.)

Allow me to provide an example which I think encompasses this situation pretty well...

Your favorite sandwich is a turkey sandwich, and you ask me to make you one. I decide to make you a ham sandwich instead, maybe because I think you'll like it more (the reason doesn't really matter). You take a bite and immediately realize it's not what you asked for. Yet you continue eating, and it grows on you, and by the time you're done it's your new favorite sandwich.

The moral of this story: if you had thrown it back after the first bite, you never would have grown to like it.

(Note: My philosophy class made me pretty good at coming up with examples. I'm prepared to defend it and explain better how this ties into the current situation if need be.)
Well, we really have yet to do more than elections, so I wouldn't say the Triumvirate "has grown on us"

Yes, but Sigma, that doesn't guarantee we'll like the 'sandwich' or the choice we make. We could end up sticking with the Triumvirate and later decide we hated it and we would've been better off with the Flexible. The more that I think about it, we should choose a ruleset we think will work better and we will have more fun with - we shouldn't choose one just because of time constraints.

Sorry, I edited this paragraph in and 2 people had already responded by the time it was done!

The difference with our situation is that we've already grown to like our sandwich, but now some people want to throw it back with only 2 bites left! We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate when we ratified it overwhelmingly, and even if it's not perfect, we can always amend it. Completely scrapping it and starting over will dishearten many players, many of whom have already been disheartened enough by the recent controversy. If the public does favor the flexible government, then we should at least keep the Triumvirate, and amend the parts of flexible that we like into it.

DZ - you're making a radically different assumption than I do, that the mods would dictate the final state of a flex ruleset on us. There's no indication of that given.

This is a liguistic trick, and I can't tell if you're doing it intentionally, but in any case I have to make it clear: Depending on if "based on fraud" is refering to "ratified" or "ruleset", your assertion can be true or false.Who's arguing semantics, Blackbird?

You cannot argue that there was fraud in the poll to determine Flexible or Triumverate. With that fraud removed, the Flexible ruleset won the election. This is simple fact.

How, then, can you even disagree with the statement that we ratified a ruleset that is fraudulent?

-- Ravensfire

Is this "fruit" you speak of a legitimate legal concept, or has the Old Testament been ratified as law? :confused:
Yup. Basically, do not allow someone to benefit from an illegal act. In criminal, if either side acts illegally during the investigation/trial to determine information, that information is excluded. In civil, do not allow someone to profit from their act by requiring repayment plus the punishment

Perhaps we should require Flexible to receive 60% of the vote here before we allow it to be scrapped outside the realm of our current law. :lol:
Perhaps we should require the Triumverate to actually win a non-fraudulent election before we use it.

-- Ravensfire

The difference with our situation is that we've already grown to like our sandwich, but now some people want to throw it back with only 2 bites left! We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate when we ratified it overwhelmingly, and even if it's not perfect, we can always amend it. Completely scrapping it and starting over will dishearten many players, many of whom have already been disheartened enough by the recent controversy. If the public does favor the flexible government, then we should at least keep the Triumvirate, and amend the parts of flexible that we like into it.


You feel we are WAY FATHER than we actually are.

Elections are simple - it doesn't matter if the ruleset is poorly written or not, all you have to do is put up a poll. So I wouldn't say we have '2 bites left'. We're more like only 1 bite in ... the ruleset hasn't even been tested yet.

"We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate". Odd. If you read the beginning of this thread, Rik Meleet posted this:


If we disregard the 10 votes of Double logins the outcome would have been:

Flexible - 19 votes
Traditional - 5 votes
Triumvirate - 10 votes
Abstain - 1 vote.
Hmm...it appears to me, that legally Flexible would've won the citizens' approval. Even in the second poll as a result of the DL-votes to tie the first one, Flexible would've won 16-12.

So obviously your statement is not right. "We" didn't all agree we liked it.

"We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate". Odd. If you read the beginning of this thread, Rik Meleet posted this:


Hmm...it appears to me, that legally Flexible would've won the citizens' approval. Even in the second poll as a result of the DL-votes to tie the first one, Flexible would've won 16-12.

So obviously your statement is not right. "We" didn't all agree we liked it.

Apparently, everyone liked it enough during the ratification process. People could have voted their conscience, but instead confirmed it as our rule of law, overwhelmingly, by a vote of 21-1.

We could end up sticking with the Triumvirate and later decide we hated it and we would've been better off with the Flexible.

Isn't it possible to argue that we could end up going with the Flexible, later deciding we hated it and would've been better off with Triumvirate?

Still not committed to either side personally...

If we choose Flexible and throw out all the completed elections, who is hurt the most by doing that? The people who were elected, some of whom are first timers.

If we continue with Triumvirate, who is hurt the most? I can't answer that question. The Tri supporters are very open about the effect changing to flex would have on them. The Flex supporters seem to be relying on principles

For many DGs we have suffered from declining population. Some of the people who have left said it was because we're too confrontational on the whole. Others said they wanted to just get on with the game, and prolonged rules fights like this pushed them away.

We're bleeding as it is, can we afford to bleed some more? Will anyone make sacrifices to improve the health of the society which plays this game?

Apparently, everyone liked it enough during the ratification process. People could have voted their conscience, but instead confirmed it as our rule of law, overwhelmingly, by a vote of 21-1.
Can't there be multiple rulesets that people like? If we put up a ratification poll for both, who knows? Maybe both would be ratified well like the Triumvirate ratification, and that would be great - it would show the quality of them both. Saying the Triumvirate was ratified like that doesn't mean it's better than Flexible - you can't compare with that poll. It means the Triumvirate is good and will work according to the people. The same could be true for Flexible. The only poll we can compare with is where the whole point of the poll is Flexible vs. Triumvirate, not Triumvirate Yes vs. Triumvirate No. However, Flexible won that poll..

Isn't it possible to argue that we could end up going with the Flexible, later deciding we hated it and would've been better off with Triumvirate?
Of course it is, it's not CoL-specific. I was just saying that where we are now is not very far into a DG.

With that fraud removed, the Flexible ruleset won the election. This is simple fact.

Fact is, that "election" has no constitutional significance. It only has a significance as a Right of Custome, which is not all that strong.

As I've noted before, talking "what if" in politics is useless, as history cannot be reversed - and should not be reversed in our case even if we could, because we do want to simulate the flows of history here, that's the whole point of the game.

How, then, can you even disagree with the statement that we ratified a ruleset that is fraudulent?

Because the ruleset simply is not fraudulent, it's the process through which it came into effect. And even the process is not fraudulent to a degree that it violates the constitution.

Yup. Basically, do not allow someone to benefit from an illegal act. In criminal, if either side acts illegally during the investigation/trial to determine information, that information is excluded. In civil, do not allow someone to profit from their act by requiring repayment plus the punishment

First, the fraud didn't occur during an investigatoin or trial, and second, there is no person profiting from his fraudulent act here (except maybe Alphawolf, but his "profitting" has been ended already). So what you've stated is all irrelevant.

A person committing fraud is a bad person and has to be punished. An idea which is the "fruit" of a fraud can still be a great idea.

The Tri supporters are very open about the effect changing to flex would have on them. The Flex supporters seem to be relying on principles

I strongly disagree. My support for the Tri is primarily based on the constitutionality (in my opinion, that is) of the current CoL, I cannot be relying on principles more.

As I've said before, Tri is ahead in this comparision both in the principle and the practical front.

Saying the Triumvirate was ratified like that doesn't mean it's better than Flexible - you can't compare with that poll. It means the Triumvirate is good and will work according to the people.

It's great you agree to that, because some people seem to have a different opinion regarding it.

I strongly disagree. My support for the Tri is primarily based on the constitutionality (in my opinion, that is) of the current CoL, I cannot be relying on principles more.

As I've said before, Tri is ahead in this comparision both in the principle and the practical front.

I misspoke, sorry.

The Tri supporters also base their support on the principle that the ratification was the only binding vote in that string of votes, and on it being a good ruleset.

What I was trying to say is that the Flex supporters have not identify anything they would "lose" by allowing Tri to continue, other than the principle.

Can't there be multiple rulesets that people like? If we put up a ratification poll for both, who knows? Maybe both would be ratified well like the Triumvirate ratification, and that would be great - it would show the quality of them both. Saying the Triumvirate was ratified like that doesn't mean it's better than Flexible - you can't compare with that poll. It means the Triumvirate is good and will work according to the people. The same could be true for Flexible. The only poll we can compare with is where the whole point of the poll is Flexible vs. Triumvirate, not Triumvirate Yes vs. Triumvirate No. However, Flexible won that poll..


Of course it is, it's not CoL-specific. I was just saying that where we are now is not very far into a DG.

Ginger_Ale we cannot have two sets of rules operating at the same time. It is difficult enough as it is to try to decide what is allowed and what isn't under one set of rules! The kind of poll you're suggesting would only be a beauty or popularity contest. It could not be a way of deciding what rules we're going to use to play a game.

DaveShack has brought up a great point and I'd like to reinforce it. I'm a firm believer that haggling over the rules is an inherent part of any democratic system. It is a part I enjoy and that's why I ran for a judicial spot. Not all people feel the same as I do. Some want to play [civ4] and not be bothered by demogame rules. That's fine. We need a demogame where those of us who want to put time and energy into a good demogame ruleset can do so while those who want to play [civ4] or engage in roleplaying can do so at the same time. One of these aspects of the game should not bring the others to a grinding halt for that will surely reduce the fun for part of our players and they will leave to do something else.

Rik Meleet had good intentions in posting this poll but he asked the wrong question. We should not be debating Flexible versus Triumvirate here. That debate was made long ago. It was polled, Triumvirate won and the people moved on to formalize that system. Now that this has been done we find that the original poll was fraudulent and therefore misleading. But we cannot simply go back to that poll and accept it's modified results and go from there. It is a matter of timing.

If the fraud had been detected early on then we could have made the switch and put our efforts into refining Flexible for ratification. That opportunity was missed. Flexible and Triumvirate are no longer equal entitites as one is a diamond in the rough while the other has been cut, polished and set. We have to look at things as they are now, not what they were at the time the fraudulent poll ended or even at what could have been.

Compare the fraudulent poll to the fraud uncovered in the recent elections. The fraud in the elections was found in time to install the actual choice of our citizens into office. If the fraud had been uncovered after the term ended this could not have been done. The fraud would then (unfortunately) have been a fait accompli.

All that aside, as a veteran of many [civ3] demogames I think it is about time we come to realize that we do not need a complete set of rules in place before we start playing and we certainly do not need to stick with one set of rules through out the whole game. Just as there are different stages in a Civ game (openings, midgames and endgames) so there should be different stages to our rules. Our form of government can change over time. There is nothing wrong with that and making such changes should not bring the game to a halt.

The question we should be asking ourselves is not whether we want a Flexible or Triumvirate system. The question we should be asking ourselves is do we want to move ahead and play using the decisions already made (irregardless of what they were based on) or do we want to, in light of recent revelations, stop and go back to a certain point and start over?

In other words do we want to play or do we want to figure out how we're going to play?

A good summary, donsig.

1 vote taken away from Triumvirate. 1 vote added to Flexible.
Ginger_Ale has changed his mind.

1 vote taken away from Triumvirate. 1 vote added to Flexible.
Ginger_Ale has changed his mind.

Gee, no one saw that coming. Now I have to remove Ginger_Ale from the list of those objective enough to base their decision on constitutionality, instead of "which government is better." :(

donsig got it right in his post. The original question needs to be re-addressed as there are to many way to interpret its meaning. We have people voting for Flexible because they think that means we can work to amend it later. Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the Flexible ruleset would pass under an amendment!

Rik,
I think that no matter what gets "decided" here, we should let the Judiciary do its job. After all, that body of the government has constitutional backing.

Gee, no one saw that coming. Now I have to remove Ginger_Ale from the list of those objective enough to base their decision on constitutionality, instead of "which government is better." :(

donsig got it right in his post. The original question needs to be re-addressed as there are to many way to interpret its meaning. We have people voting for Flexible because they think that means we can work to amend it later. Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the Flexible ruleset would pass under an amendment!

Rik,
I think that no matter what gets "decided" here, we should let the Judiciary do its job. After all, that body of the government has constitutional backing.
There is no constitutional problem, as I see this poll it is informational and non binding. If flexible does win, the current government is still in power until the CoL is amended, which would hopefully be done by the start of term 2.

There are no constitutional problems, as long as this poll is seen as informational

There is no constitutional problem, as I see this poll it is informational and non binding. If flexible does win, the current government is still in power until the CoL is amended, which would hopefully be done by the start of term 2.

There are no constitutional problems, as long as this poll is seen as informational

Can we get a moderator to confirm this?

Gee, no one saw that coming. Now I have to remove Ginger_Ale from the list of those objective enough to base their decision on constitutionality, instead of "which government is better." :(

donsig got it right in his post. The original question needs to be re-addressed as there are to many way to interpret its meaning. We have people voting for Flexible because they think that means we can work to amend it later. Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the Flexible ruleset would pass under an amendment!

Rik,
I think that no matter what gets "decided" here, we should let the Judiciary do its job. After all, that body of the government has constitutional backing.

So if I don't vote your way, I'm not objective? :confused: Using that, more than half of us are subjective...

donsig had a nice summary, although I don't still agree with the "Triumvirate won the poll" line, at least not legally.


Ginger_Ale we cannot have two sets of rules operating at the same time. It is difficult enough as it is to try to decide what is allowed and what isn't under one set of rules! The kind of poll you're suggesting would only be a beauty or popularity contest. It could not be a way of deciding what rules we're going to use to play a game.
I wasn't talking about having 2 sets of rules working at the same time, I was talking that the ratification poll cannot be used to compare the two's popularity.

So if I don't vote your way, I'm not objective? :confused: Using that, more than half of us are subjective...

That's not it at all. I had earlier used your objectivity as an example because you had the foresight to understand that even though you preferred the Flexible government, you realized that it wouldn't be constitutional to support it via this poll.

Or so I thought.

Blkbird and I (and others I'm sure) also supported Flexible during the preliminary polls, yet we back our current ruleset here to avoid a constitutional crisis. That's a key facet in defining objectivity.

There is no doubt that the *will* of the people is important. However, it is not *as* important as the *actions* of the same people. So if the we, the citizens have acted to make a decision, we *must* take responsibility for it, *even* if we've been *tricked* into doing so.

Is that clear enough?

There is no doubt that the *will* of the people is important. However, it is not *as* important as the *actions* of the same people. So if the we, the citizens have acted to make a decision, we *must* take responsibility for it, *even* if we've been *tricked* into doing so.

Is that clear enough?

Yes, it's quite clear that you want to ignore the will of the people that have never voted for the Triumverate when placed in competition against another ruleset.

-- Ravensfire

There is no doubt that the *will* of the people is important. However, it is not *as* important as the *actions* of the same people. So if the we, the citizens have acted to make a decision, we *must* take responsibility for it, *even* if we've been *tricked* into doing so.

Is that clear enough?
if we go by your logic, the people who received DL votes in elections would still have that office, I mean we have to take responsibilty for those DLs don't we?

Let's consider this analogy:

Your doctor tells you you're ill and need treatment. He recommend one particular treatment because it would be the most effective one for you and because it is his specialty, too. The treatment cost more money than you have, so you take a loan with your bank.

Then it turns out your doctor has been lying to you. The treatment you've payed for isn't the best for you, and your doctor has taken the money and vanished.

Now, do you still have to take the responsibility for the loan and pay it back to your bank? Of course you have to. Can you give back your medication to the pharmacy company? Most probably not.

Yes, it's quite clear that you want to ignore the will of the people that have never voted for the Triumverate when placed in competition against another ruleset.

Yes, I'm willing to ignore the will of the people when it contradicts the action of the same people. I already said that.

It should be self-explanatory that action has more relevance than will.

On a sidenote, ravensfire, I voted for you as the PD, I don't regret it, and I'll respect your decision in the JR case I've filed. However, I must protest against your underlining accusation that I have a lack of respect for the people.

Let's consider this analogy:

Your doctor tells you you're ill and need treatment. He recommend one particular treatment because it would be the most effective one for you and because it is his specialty, too. The treatment cost more money than you have, so you take a loan with your bank.

Then it turns out your doctor has been lying to you. The treatment you've payed for isn't the best for you, and your doctor has taken the money and vanished.

Now, do you still have to take the responsibility for the loan and pay it back to your bank? Of course you have to.
that is a horrible analogy, you can't compare voting to bank loans...
Here is a correct analogy:

Someone in the USA is found to have stuffed ballots hundreds of times(like DLs) in a very contested state for governor, the candidate the person stuffed for wins that state because of those stuffed ballots, you are expecting the rest of the state to take responsibility for that?

After much thought, I'm beginning to agree that the question of this poll is the wrong question. What about this?

Q: Do you want to discard the CoL ratification (whether legal or not) and elections, and start over?

Yes, start over
No, continue play
Abstain

If there is no significant opposition to rephrasing the question within the next 3-5 hours, I will post a new poll with this question, under my authority as a member of the organizing committee. Significant opposition will be interpreted as a "no" to this idea from any moderator, Ravensfire as de-facto leader of Flex (in my opinion), Blkbird as de-facto leader of Tri (in my opinion), or any 5 or more citizens. If there is opposition we can discuss the idea of a separate poll in another thread or drop the whole idea.

On a sidenote, ravensfire, I voted for you as the JA, I don't regret it, and I'll respect your decision in the JR case I've filed. However, I must protest against your underlining accusation that I have a lack of respect for the people.

And yet, you've been laying the same accusation on me. We're rehashing point now, I think I'll step away. My points are out there.

-- Ravensfire

if we go by your logic, the people who received DL votes in elections would still have that office, I mean we have to take responsibilty for those DLs don't we?

No, we don't have to take responsibility for *others*, like those who cheated. But the ratification of the CoL is *our* doing, not those of any cheater, and we need to take responsibility for that.

Specificly, each of one of us who voted "yes" in the ratification has to take responsibility for that. Those who voted with DL, their votes are disregarded; those who voted rightfully, they must face that choice they made.

Here is a correct analogy:

Someone in the USA is found to have stuffed ballots hundreds of times(like DLs) in a very contested state for governor, the candidate the person stuffed for wins that state because of those stuffed ballots, you are expecting the rest of the state to take responsibility for that?

Now *that* is a terrible analogy. We have two polls - actually three. The first two regarding which CoL draft is more favorable, the last about if Tri should be ratified. You - and others - keeping mixing them together. There is no doubt about the first two polls which have been manipulated and therefore whose results are invalid. But that doesn't invalidate the ratification poll as a consequence.

If you want to make an analogy, please come up with a two-phase one, because we're dealing with two completely different (and yet linked, I agree) decisions here.

And yet, you've been laying the same accusation on me. We're rehashing point now, I think I'll step away. My points are out there.

No, I am not accusing of having no or too little respect for the people at all. If you have that impression, I'd like to know from where.

I am accusing you of prioritizing the will of the people over the action of the people. You're welcome to rebute that.

People, we must not let these allegations against Alphawolf tear us apart. We have created the beginnings of an amazing Demogame, and we should not let this be torn down by one mans alleged powerplays. We are regressing the throat-slashing people we had become during the government process, and most of the comments made then (many by myself) we later rescinded and apologized for. I agree the IF the allegations are true, then this was a horrible thing but, in my opinion the best course of action would be as follows.

1. The impeachment/resignation of Alphawolf, with an emergency Presidential election held afterwards.

2. The banning of the "other 11", but a FULL presidential( and Mod) pardon for Alphawolf.

3. A quick start to the Demogame within 1 week after that.

We must put this scandal behind us and not allow this to drag down the respectful citziens of this the first CIV demogame and also not drag down the ENTIRE DEDMOGAME ITSELF!

Q: Do you want to discard the CoL ratification (whether legal or not) and elections, and start over?

Yes, start over
No, continue play
Abstain

If there is no significant opposition to rephrasing the question within the next 3-5 hours, I will post a new poll with this question, under my authority as a member of the organizing committee. Significant opposition will be interpreted as a "no" to this idea from any moderator, Ravensfire as de-facto leader of Flex (in my opinion), Blkbird as de-facto leader of Tri (in my opinion), or any 5 or more citizens. If there is opposition we can discuss the idea of a separate poll in another thread or drop the whole idea.

I refuse to consider myself de-facto leader of any opinion here. But I do oppose such a new poll. I'm especially offended by the phrase "whether legal or not".

With that, the question becomes a suggestive question (and is therefore no longer neutral) - it suggest that the legality of the CoL does not really matter. That is a horrible suggestion! And it's the least I expect from the Chief Justice.

If we're making a new poll because the one of this thread is unclear, it should ask the following question: Shall we change our Code of Laws to the Flexible ruleset as soon as possible (either through amendment of the Cod of Laws or through amendment of the Constitution)?

But in my opinion, even that question isn't the right one now. I consider the most important question at this time to be the the one I've asked in the JR1 request (and it must be answered by the JR Board, not through a vote, as it is a judiciary matter, not a popularity one). As soon as that is cleared, it's pretty self-explanatory where we should go from there, and which question we should ask ourselves as citizens then.

I refuse to consider myself de-facto leader of any opinion here. But I do oppose such a new poll. I'm especially offended by the phrase "whether legal or not".

With that, the question becomes a suggestive question (and is therefore no longer neutral) - it suggest that the legality of the CoL does not really matter. That is a horrible suggestion! And it's the least I expect from the Chief Justice.

If we're making a new poll because the one of this thread is unclear, it should ask the following question: Shall we change our Code of Laws to the Flexible ruleset as soon as possible (either through amendment of the Cod of Laws or through amendment of the Constitution)?

But in my opinion, even that question isn't the right one now. I consider the most important question at this time to be the the one I've asked in the JR1 request (and I want it cleared by the JR Board, not through a vote, as it is a judiciary matter, not a popularity one). As soon as that is cleared, it's pretty self-explanatory where we should go from there, and which question we should ask ourselves as citizens then.
I have to agree here, Daveshack's poll is the wrong question it should be:
"Should we begin work on amending the Code of Laws to the Flexible government?"

We cannot undo what has been done, but we can amend it

I refuse to consider myself de-facto leader of any opinion here.

Does "most vocal proponent of" sound better? ;)

But I do oppose such a new poll.

You're not the person I expected opposition from, but of course I still respect that you don't like it, so it won't appear in that form from me. :)


I'm especially offended by the phrase "whether legal or not".

With that, the question becomes a suggestive question (and is therefore no longer neutral) - it suggest that the legality of the CoL does not really matter. That is a horrible suggestion! And it's the least I expect from the Chief Justice.


To you, it suggests the CoL might not be legal, but to Flex supporters it suggests the CoL might be legal and they might be trampling on an established body of law.

As Chief Justice presiding over a ruling on whether the CoL is legal, I can't say definitively one way or the other until I've given my official ruling. Therefore I can't post or even suggest a reworded poll on this issue without keeping it open for the ruling to go either way.


If we're making a new poll because the one of this thread is unclear, it should ask the following question: Shall we change our Code of Laws to the Flexible ruleset as soon as possible (either through amendment of the Cod of Laws or through amendment of the Constitution)?


Putting the question this way would be assuming that the CoL is valid, which has not been determined yet by the Judiciary. I'd have to object on essentially the same ground you object on, the question is suggestive.

I don't think that the legality of the CoL should be in question here, seeing as it was RATIFIED, so regardless of whether or not you agree with how the content came to be, you agreed that the content should be law!

As Chief Justice presiding over a ruling on whether the CoL is legal, I can't say definitively one way or the other until I've given my official ruling. Therefore I can't post or even suggest a reworded poll on this issue without keeping it open for the ruling to go either way.

But you can - and you should still uphold that the CoL's legality issue absolutely matters. The CoL may either be legal or not, but in either cases it is significant, and a question which implicitly denies the relevance of the legality issue is highly offensive to the Justice System. That's what I meant, if it wasn't clear to you.

Putting the question this way would be assuming that the CoL is valid, which has not been determined yet by the Judiciary. I'd have to object on essentially the same ground you object on, the question is suggestive.

I know, therefore I said myself that it wouldn't be the right question. We're pretty much stuck until the CoL's legality is cleared, unless we intentionally decide to do something illegal - God forbid that.

Looking from this point of view, the vage formulation of this poll here might not have been that bad at all. This serves as an informational, non-binding reference for further specific, binding decisions.

Now that I've thought about it, I think we should treat this as if we were making a new constitution in the midst of an ongoing democracy. While the Founding Fathers were making the current U.S. Constitution, they didn't shut down the government completely. They still went by the Articles of Confederation until they had a better system to implement.

Therefore, I would suggest we run with the Triumverate rules for now and switch once the new proposed system is finalized. It would be nice to wait until we were sure everything was clean & ready, but another long delay might kill the motivation from the start.

Now that I've thought about it, I think we should treat this as if we were making a new constitution in the midst of an ongoing democracy. While the Founding Fathers were making the current U.S. Constitution, they didn't shut down the government completely. They still went by the Articles of Confederation until they had a better system to implement.

Therefore, I would suggest we run with the Triumverate rules for now and switch once the new proposed system is finalized. It would be nice to wait until we were sure everything was clean & ready, but another long delay might kill the motivation from the start.

Does this represent a vote change, or a suggestion on how to implement whatever we decide to do?

A suggestion on implementation. The Triumverate is a solid set of laws, even if its ratification was crooked. The Demogame won't fall apart if we use it for a term while we prepare an alternative in the background.

If the Code of Laws was Ratified and accepted, how can the judiciary rule it not so. I see no reason it is unconstitional. Also since my proposal is not mentioned does evryone dislike it. Just wondering

Notice:

The Court is close to being ready to rule on the CoL ratification. Tentatively we plan to conclude discussion tomorrow. Although we are well aware of the discussion in this thread and are willing to use it in our deliberations, we also invite citizen comment in the Judicial Review Discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152793) thread, particularily comments on the ratification itself. We are not reviewing the relative merits of the systems, that topic should remain here.

It looks like most of the citizens have voted or are aware this poll exists. It's time to pick the closing date and time. 4 days seems enough.

This poll was created just shortly before 00:00 GMT Saturday January 8th 2006. For me the first post is timestamped "Jan 07, 2006, 12:40 AM". The poll is made 1 minute later.

That means that this poll will be closed automatically on:

Jan 11, 2006, 12:41 AM CET
=
Jan 10, 2006, 11:41 PM GMT
=
Jan 10, 2006, 18:41 (6:40 pm) New York time
=
Jan 10, 2006, 15:41 (3:40 pm) Los Angeles time

That means that this poll will be closed automatically on:

Please edit the first post to include this information - preferrably in red color or at least in bold.

Please edit the first post to include this information - preferrably in red color or at least in bold.done, but not really necessary; the poll also shows when it will close.

Hsve we decided whether this is binding or not? I personally vote binding, because the people ahve spoken!

Hsve we decided whether this is binding or not? I personally vote binding, because the people ahve spoken!
If Flexible wins this poll is it still binding? :rolleyes:

This poll is an opinion poll because it wasn't posted by an official in the area of pre game options(ie a founding father), check Article C of the constitution

just wondering. Though if flexible won i would be mad but accept it!:p

This poll is an opinion poll because it wasn't posted by an official in the area of pre game options(ie a founding father), check Article C of the constitution

Your interpretation of that part of the Constitution is - again - totally without merit. An official poll doesn't have to be binding, a binding poll doesn't have to be official. There two properties of a poll have no causal connection to each other.

Your interpretation of that part of the Constitution is - again - totally without merit. An official poll doesn't have to be binding, a binding poll doesn't have to be official. There two properties of a poll have no causal connection to each other.
So what is different about an official poll from a non official one?

So what is different about an official poll from a non official one?

See here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152793#post3549398

To make it even clearer: A poll can be -
- official and binding
- official and non-binding
- non-official and binding
- non-official and non-binding

See here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152793#post3549398

To make it even clearer: A poll can be -
- official and binding
- official and non-binding
- non-official and binding
- non-official and non-binding
you aren't telling me any difference, you are just pointing out an elected official has to post a poll to make it official, what I am asking is do official polls have more relevance? or are they just called official for the fun of it

you aren't telling me any difference, you are just pointing out an elected official has to post a poll to make it official, what I am asking is do official polls have more relevance? or are they just called official for the fun of it

I thought by "difference" you meant "difference in definiton", I didn't know you omean "difference in effect".

Well, under the current Constitution, an official non-binding poll has equal relevance to a non-official non-binding poll, while an official binding poll (which is defined as Referendum) has *less* relevance than a non-official binding poll regarding a general issue (which is defined as Initiative).

So the answer to your question is, official polls don't have more relevance, they have equal or less relevance than non-official polls depeding on if they're binding. Since there *is* a difference, they're not called official for fun.

That's interesting... Thunderfall has turned his attention to our little dilemma. And abstained. Support for us making our own decision? Interest in joining the game?

In any case, :hatsoff:

As a citizen and Constitutional scholar (but not as CJ at this time) I don't think this poll can be considered binding. It fails the "informed" criteria because the citizens are not presented with a clear statement of what the effects of each choice would be.

That said, I think many of us would take actions based on the result, even if the result doesn't force us to take those actions. Also the whole thing might be rendered unnecessary by the pending JR.

A great amount of water has flowed to the sea during this discussion, and even more will flow to it before this situation is resolved. I have read every single post in this discussion, and have been swayed this way and that. At one point I was sure I'd click Tri, at another I was closer to voting Flex.

In the end I asked myself: "What is this poll about?" and I realised that the discussion included many topics that extended far beyond the reach of the question posed. IMHO the question asked here is: do we continue with the Tri government as is FOR NOW or not?

I do see the point of the many Flex supporters that as has come out, it was the initial favoured government, and that it should get a fair chance. But to be completely fair: another government is in place at this very moment, and it cannot simply cease to be. Therefore I encourage the Flex supporters to polish up to bring up a more final version of the Flex government, while we carry on using the Tri model for now. By the time the Flex draft is ready, we can compare it to the Tri model, THEN decide what our government should be and amend our way to it, or have it remain as is.

Right here right now I vote for Tri, not because I believe Flex is a worse kind of government, not because I think Tri has more legality, but simply because it is the government IN PLACE and we have to work with it as best we can. You can't leave a nation without a government, can you? And no, I don't want to hear about anarchy... :P

i voted triumverate mainly due to donovan zoi's arguments, we are a democracy so we must adapt and change things from within and not let the mods do it.

i voted triumverate mainly due to donovan zoi's arguments, we are a democracy so we must adapt and change things from within and not let the mods do it.Don't worry; we're not going to do it. :)

I agree with Gloriana. I would love to see a fleshed out version of the Flex government, so I can compare them side by side. This is my first Demo game, and I don't know offhand what the difference is. I just know that right now one is already written out and approved, while the other one is still just a basic idea. I'm so anxious to get this game underway.

I agree with Gloriana. I would love to see a fleshed out version of the Flex government, so I can compare them side by side. This is my first Demo game, and I don't know offhand what the difference is. I just know that right now one is already written out and approved, while the other one is still just a basic idea. I'm so anxious to get this game underway.

Link to Flex thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142948)

Page 2 has 2 versions, page 3 has another. All of those are about 95% fleshed out and detailed.

I assure you, a Flex ruleset is not just a basic idea.

-- Ravensfire

I assure you, a Flex ruleset is not just a basic idea.


I agree. There would be some work required for a final tuneup, but it's not anything like we'd be starting from a blank page.

Impressive how many people have voted. We only has so many votes in your elections, which were watered up by 10+ DL.

DS, are you ever going to vote? Just give your vote to Abstain :D if you can't decide or don't want to - this poll will close before the JR1 ruling for sure.

10 minutes to go. Final window to vote.

And Abstain gets the final vote.

There we go, at long last.

Thus the people speak, and the government stands.

After being a tight run almost all the way, the final decision is surprisingly clear: almost 3:2 in favour of going alone with Tri.

I think this result just shows that most people want to get the game started. I know that I voted for continuing with the Tri gov with the full knowledge that we should have the ability in the future to modify the CoL as we go along.

There are a lot of things that I like about the Flex style, but I still think it needs some work and more discussion. We can be doing that while we start the game under the Tri gov framework.

After being a tight run almost all the way, the final decision is surprisingly clear: Almost 2:1 in favour of going alone with Tri.

How is 23:17 almost 2:1? It's only about 1.3:1...

Anyway, I'm fine with the result, at least it will get the show on the road! :hammer:

How is 23:17 almost 2:1? It's only about 1.3:1...

It is "almost" 2:1 because it would have been 2:1 had a single person (you) not changed your vote.

Blkbird, the vote change is reflected in the # of votes for each (though my name stays under Tri). You can check for yourself - count up Tri, and you'll get 24 names, but only 23 votes. Flex will have 16 names, yet 17 votes.

And sorry, but I don't think even 24:16 would be 2:1...that'd be 3:2.

And sorry, but I don't think even 24:16 would be 2:1...that'd be 3:2.

Obviously you're right about that... :crazyeye:

The people have spoken, and i couldn't agree more with your statement Bengeance! :D

Even I was undecided on this. I was leaning towards flexible, but we already shot ourselves in the foot so to speak with this one. No need to shoot the other foot. :)

Ugh! Dang college starting early. If the poll was to remain a bit longer, I would have voted for Flexable :-p