Due to the pressing destruction of our individualist democracy, and the degrading of our system, I hereby announce the creation of the Free Spirits. The Free Spirits is a political party, who's sole purpose is to bring about it's own destruction.

The Free Spirit:

To aid independents who seek election.
To enact an amendment, that bans slate voting.


Do not ask us to support you for an office. The Free Spirits, as a group, will never universally support a single entity for an political poistion inside of the Democracy Game. Members are free to vote for any person they wish, regardless of political affiliation.

We stand united only in the creation of an amendment that will end our unity.

Memberlist:
Strider
Chieftess
CivGeneral
Chillaxation

Good plan. I like it. :thumbsup:
I'm sure the "free spirits" will have plenty of good discussions about platform in this thread.

I'm going to write up a "proposed" amendment to be discussed inside of this thread, before we launch a real discussion. If you don't know what this amendment will contain, then you need to read the first post.

:clap: Strider, this is just what this game needed: an opponent :rotfl:

I'd join if I wasn't too monogamous to, or if I wasn't with the idiots already.

Brilliant. I'd like to join.

That's interesting, you have two members who have not posted in the thread.

Moving politics out of the secrecy of PM's and direct chat links and into the forum is one of the purposes of citizen groups / parties. You will find that certain groups are very vocal and very open about certain policies -- and that's somewhat of a good thing. It is clear that this group was created in the secrecy of a back room.


The Free Spirit:
To aid independents who seek election.
To enact an amendment, that bans political parties and slate voting.

How do you plan to aid independents? By choosing as a group to support people who are independent because they are independent? If you do that -- then you're a party and you're using slate voting.

An amendment to eliminate parties will be very difficult. It will be completely impossible to ban slate voting, because if there are no parties people will just go back into the shady world of private chat rooms and PMs.

Pretty much what dave said really, its a nice idea and everything and is obviously a retaliation to other events but i dont like how this idea has come about not in the forum. So i wont be joining.

I like the idea, but I agree with Dave. It would become an impossible one to implement, and would be against the nature of Democracy. If we had a Fascist revolution we might be able to implement your plan, but until then we must put up with any and all political parties.

That's interesting, you have two members who have not posted in the thread.

Moving politics out of the secrecy of PM's and direct chat links and into the forum is one of the purposes of citizen groups / parties. You will find that certain groups are very vocal and very open about certain policies -- and that's somewhat of a good thing. It is clear that this group was created in the secrecy of a back room.

They haven't posted, because I wanted to get acouple of members to join before I posted the thread. I explained the party to them, and asked them to join. There was no cooperative movement, I figured that the party would be more successful with a larger starting member-base. People are more likely to join, if there jumping on the bandwagon.

How do you plan to aid independents? By choosing as a group to support people who are independent because they are independent? If you do that -- then you're a party and you're using slate voting.

An amendment to eliminate parties will be very difficult. It will be completely impossible to ban slate voting, because if there are no parties people will just go back into the shady world of private chat rooms and PMs.

All I have to say is... you need to learn how to shut the hell up about something you have no idea about. For your information, I was planning on using my writing skills to get independent platforms out in the open. As it says in the very first post, which you conviently overlooked, we will not universally, as a party, support any candidate for any poistion. These writings will never urge anyone to vote for the candidate, I may not even vote for them myself. Directing and leading people on the demogame workings, etc. may also aid them in an election.

Can you read? Use your head, and don't try to piss me off again.

Fair enough... I apologize for being so harsh, it was meant as an illustration of the irony of the appearance of how it was done. I comment on ideas, not on people.

I support people who have the skills, personality, and inclination to perform their leadership tasks well and in a timely manner. I also support the rights of people to give preference to people they know and trust. The "helping independents" part of this group is something I completely agree with, but the "outlawing parties" part is something I can't support.

@ Strider - Maybe I'm just misreading DaveShack's post, but I fail to see where his comments warrant the kind of personal attacks that you have leveled at him in response. His concerns are fair and reasonable for the proposal that you are making.

Even if he feels he was harsh in his wording, nothing he said was personal or directly negative.

@ Strider - Maybe I'm just misreading DaveShack's post, but I fail to see where his comments warrant the kind of personal attacks that you have leveled at him in response. His concerns are fair and reasonable for the proposal that you are making.

Even if he feels he was harsh in his wording, nothing he said was personal or directly negative.

He made a statement, with no information on the subject he was talking about, and conviently ignored previous statements in an attempt to further his own goals. He asked how I planned on aiding independents, then went on to say the following:

How do you plan to aid independents? By choosing as a group to support people who are independent because they are independent? If you do that -- then you're a party and you're using slate voting.

Asking how I planned on aiding independents does not bother me, but the "By choosing as a group to support people who are independent because they are independent? If you do that -- then you're a party and you're using slate voting." is what ticked me off. He attempted to apply a sub-standard, in an attempt to slander myself and my goals.

I say I have a pretty good reason to be pissed off at the moment.

I wouldn't but thats just me!:goodjob:

Anyway, while i feel down to my very core that we should have political parties, and lobbied for them in the first place, i am glad there is someone to put them in check. I always imagined there would be 4-5 semi strong ones, not 1-2 strong, 3-4 weak ones!

But don't lose faith in the system, and giants will always trip over something. First the IIP, then the Party and and maybe soon those of the low-iq's will have there support base lessend. In a very long game, the parties will continue to evolve, grow and shrink with the demogame. If we are in a prolonged war, there will be pro- and anti-war parties that when the war ends will shrink. Its simple history, both in the demogame and out of it!

In america there are now the Democrats and Republicans mostly, but before ther were the Feds and Anti-feds, the Whigs and the Democrtaic Republicans, the Populists, the list goes on! SO i respect Strider and this thread as a whole, but urge all to not lose faith.

Thats my two sense, good day!

I urge everyone who supports political parties, tell me, why do you consider them fun?

The comradery, the depth, the activity, and the help that they adds. The feeling that your a helpful party member working toward a productiv( in your eyes) goal! Its like a step up from Citiziens Groups!

I urge everyone who supports political parties, tell me, why do you consider them fun?

What hasn't happened, and what would be most interesting to me, would be to see a party develop a platform, a plan, and campaign on that platforum in all elections they are in. That would be great to see - a group of people with a plan, campaigning on that plan. That has not happened in any DG.

I think that would put some focus and energy in the political parties, and lead to more competition between them. Heck, the internal discussions alone to develop a platform will be fun to watch.

-- Ravensfire

The comradery, the depth, the activity, and the help that they adds. The feeling that your a helpful party member working toward a productiv( in your eyes) goal! Its like a step up from Citiziens Groups!

You've met my criteria exactly, your confusing a citizen group with a Political Party. What you said above describes a citizen group, a Political Party is basically the same thing, except with the addition of slate voting and elitism.

To summarize, a political party supports candidates for elections that meet there platforms, they tell they're members who to vote for. Eliminate that, and you have a citizens group.

What hasn't happened, and what would be most interesting to me, would be to see a party develop a platform, a plan, and campaign on that platforum in all elections they are in. That would be great to see - a group of people with a plan, campaigning on that plan. That has not happened in any DG.

I think that would put some focus and energy in the political parties, and lead to more competition between them. Heck, the internal discussions alone to develop a platform will be fun to watch.

-- Ravensfire

Unluckily, I'm not the type of person to do that. I prefer to do things myself, and handle things without any outside interference. I only ask for support in situtations that it's necessary.

Other peoples minds scare me.

Unluckily, I'm not the type of person to do that. I prefer to do things myself, and handle things without any outside interference. I only ask for support in situtations that it's necessary.

Other peoples minds scare me.
But it's perfectly fine for you to demand that others follow your method, your mind?

I think not.

The success of the political parties in maintaining activity is far, far beyond what citizen groups have accomplished in the past few years. Look at the Idiots group - you cannot find a single citizen group EVER that is that active. It's random, chaotic, but they are having fun. That is far and beyond the most important goal of this game.

It's hard to argue with anything that keeps people active and participating.

-- Ravensfire

But it's perfectly fine for you to demand that others follow your method, your mind?

I think not.

Demand? Doesn't look like demanding to me.

The success of the political parties in maintaining activity is far, far beyond what citizen groups have accomplished in the past few years. Look at the Idiots group - you cannot find a single citizen group EVER that is that active. It's random, chaotic, but they are having fun. That is far and beyond the most important goal of this game.

It's hard to argue with anything that keeps people active and participating.

The Spice Traders Guild... Demogame 1. A citizen group that achieved about the same as the Idoits have. There was also the Jedi Knight citizen group inside of Demogame 2 that achieved the same. (In reference to the total number of players anyway)

Same thing happened to them that will happen to the current set, people got bored of it. We have an influx of newer plays who are amazed by the flashing lights, but they will lose they're amazement sooner or later. Only question is, to the cost of how many other players?

They can have they're fun with the citizen groups, there is no need to allow slate voting and elitism.

I urge everyone who supports political parties, tell me, why do you consider them fun?

Demand? Doesn't look like demanding to me.



The Spice Traders Guild... Demogame 1. A citizen group that achieved about the same as the Idoits have. There was also the Jedi Knight citizen group inside of Demogame 2 that achieved the same. (In reference to the total number of players anyway)

Same thing happened to them that will happen to the current set, people got bored of it. We have an influx of newer plays who are amazed by the flashing lights, but they will lose they're amazement sooner or later. Only question is, to the cost of how many other players?

They can have they're fun with the citizen groups, there is no need to allow slate voting and elitism.
It seems to me this discussion revolves around the Idiot’s. Let me give you a little background but I speak only for the Idiot's. Our group consists primarily of people that play this game a lot. Whether it was in a SG , PBEM, ISDG, MTDG or Pitboss we play a lot. Because of these experiences many of us have developed an enormous amount of camaraderie with each other. We like each other and know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly we have fun. Consider this as well, many of the Idiot’s are extremely active on MTDG teams (with team KISS we have over 20 active participants on our team). Why? Because we have fun, trust each other and can play this game at a very high level. It's as simple as that. The Idiot's play this game a lot and play it well.

We have now decided to participate in this game. We will bring fun on the outside and serious gameplay on the inside.
What hasn't happened, and what would be most interesting to me, would be to see a party develop a platform, a plan, and campaign on that platforum in all elections they are in. That would be great to see - a group of people with a plan, campaigning on that plan. That has not happened in any DG.

I think that would put some focus and energy in the political parties, and lead to more competition between them. Heck, the internal discussions alone to develop a platform will be fun to watch.

-- RavensfireI think with the group at hand you will see this develop. I can't think of one elected person that didn't make the case for their office.

But don't lose faith in the system, and giants will always trip over something. First the IIP, then the Party and and maybe soon those of the low-iq's will have there support base lessend.
Be careful here. We may be idiots we aren’t stupid.
You should probably look around some of the other forums before questioning a group's IQ and more importantly, to this game, skill level.

I feel a lot of this discussion here is being directed at us. That's fine. We are not afraid of a heated discussion and questioning strategy. We do it all the time. What we won’t stand for is taking the fun out of the game. Strider you may be right. We may bail out at some point but it won’t be because of a lack of interest it will happen if it stops being fun

Let me share my views of slate voting and elitism and see how it fits in with what you're concerned with.

The type of party which would qualify as elitist and as using slate voting tactics is one which makes its membership exclusive of people who vote only for members of the party and who vote according to party doctrine on non-election matters. Certainly the coercive effects of this are to be avoided. If membership in a party required always voting for the party candidate or position, then it would quickly run into the forum rules, since we already have statements on record from both Rik and CT that a party may not exclude someone from membership.

The reality is a party which, for the convenience of its members, posts a list of elections which feature members as candidates. There may be statements encouraging people to vote for party members, but there is no penalty if someone votes for a different candidate. The party may suggest withholding votes, but likewise there is no penalty. A group of people who happen to think alike happen to vote for (or against) the same candidate. This is not eliteist, nor is it slate voting.

You won't find it listed all in one place, but some of the parties do indeed have platforms, and the members act true to that platform. For example, one well-established party has a "platform plank" related to making information available to the public in an easily accessible manner. Members of that party went to other folks who had access and some responsibility for certain information, to ask for it to be posted in the easily accessible form, and they got stonewalling and thinly veiled insults as a reply. Answering a simple request for information with the equivalent of "it's right there in front of your face dummy" instead of asking what can be done to make it better is pretty anti-social, and the perpetrator of such rudeness got soundly smashed in the polls. That's what I call having a platform and sticking to it.

Edit: cross-posted with Whomp, you can see we're talking about some of the same things.

One other thing...

Strider, we've basically threadjacked your group. :( This is deplorable and needs to be stopped.

Would you prefer to start a new thread and let the discussion continue here, or ask a mod to separate the citizen group from the discussion, or leave it how it is? Your thread, your decision.

The Spice Traders Guild... Demogame 1. A citizen group that achieved about the same as the Idoits have. There was also the Jedi Knight citizen group inside of Demogame 2 that achieved the same. (In reference to the total number of players anyway)
And that's the only way they compare. Pure RPG group vs a party. For game impact, both Civ4 and DG, there's no comparison. For RPG - neutral. Both provide ample opportunity for proponents to post within a focus.
Same thing happened to them that will happen to the current set, people got bored of it. We have an influx of newer plays who are amazed by the flashing lights, but they will lose they're amazement sooner or later.
Disagree - they may shrink, but not much. What will probably happen is those groups that do create a focus will maintain stable membership, and possibly cause other groups to form to oppose that focus. The interactions of a Dove vs a Hawk party would be quite interesting.
Only question is, to the cost of how many other players?Only other question is, at the gain of how many new players?
They can have they're fun with the citizen groups, there is no need to allow slate voting and elitism.Oh please, you know as well (and probably better than most) that these concepts are far from new, and have been in the DG for a long, long time. Why try to keep them behind hidden doors of inuendo and accusation? Shine the light of publicity on them, so most of these blocks can be seen.

-- Ravensfire

It seems to me this discussion revolves around the Idiot’s. Let me give you a little background but I speak only for the Idiot's. Our group consists primarily of people that play this game a lot. Whether it was in a SG , PBEM, ISDG, MTDG or Pitboss we play a lot. Because of these experiences many of us have developed an enormous amount of camaraderie with each other. We like each other and know each other’s strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly we have fun. Consider this as well, many of the Idiot’s are extremely active on MTDG teams (with team KISS we have over 20 active participants on our team). Why? Because we have fun, trust each other and can play this game at a very high level. It's as simple as that. The Idiot's play this game a lot and play it well.

No, it does not revolve around the idoits, and I hope it never comes to pointing blame one way or the other. I hold no grudge against the Idoit Party, or any member of it.

I feel a lot of this discussion here is being directed at us. That's fine. We are not afraid of a heated discussion and questioning strategy. We do it all the time. What we won’t stand for is taking the fun out of the game. Strider you may be right. We may bail out at some point but it won’t be because of a lack of interest it will happen if it stops being fun

You just said mostly what I said earlier. It gets old after awhile, and it stops being fun. Like I've said, if your whole purpose is to have fun, there is nothing stopping you. Not a single person has said that slate voting is the reason they're having fun.

The type of party which would qualify as elitist and as using slate voting tactics is one which makes its membership exclusive of people who vote only for members of the party and who vote according to party doctrine on non-election matters. Certainly the coercive effects of this are to be avoided. If membership in a party required always voting for the party candidate or position, then it would quickly run into the forum rules, since we already have statements on record from both Rik and CT that a party may not exclude someone from membership.

Membership inside of a party may not be exclusive, but acceptance by a party can be. Yeah, I can go into every single party inside of this game and sign up. By forum rules, they can't refuse me. Do they have to accept me as one of they're own (in a not on paper way)? Nope.

The reality is a party which, for the convenience of its members, posts a list of elections which feature members as candidates. There may be statements encouraging people to vote for party members, but there is no penalty if someone votes for a different candidate. The party may suggest withholding votes, but likewise there is no penalty. A group of people who happen to think alike happen to vote for (or against) the same candidate. This is not eliteist, nor is it slate voting.

There is a penalty for not voting for your fellow party members. They won't vote for you. Add in that the other 2/3 of the vote will be voting for their party members (for the exact same reason), your chance of election is zilch. No matter your ability, and only because everyone else in the demogame only wants to get themselves elected.

It's the reason why I hate world politics.

You won't find it listed all in one place, but some of the parties do indeed have platforms, and the members act true to that platform. For example, one well-established party has a "platform plank" related to making information available to the public in an easily accessible manner. Members of that party went to other folks who had access and some responsibility for certain information, to ask for it to be posted in the easily accessible form, and they got stonewalling and thinly veiled insults as a reply. Answering a simple request for information with the equivalent of "it's right there in front of your face dummy" instead of asking what can be done to make it better is pretty anti-social, and the perpetrator of such rudeness got soundly smashed in the polls. That's what I call having a platform and sticking to it.

Making information easily available can be the goal of a Citizen Group. They're is no need for Political Parties to handle this.

And that's the only way they compare. Pure RPG group vs a party. For game impact, both Civ4 and DG, there's no comparison. For RPG - neutral. Both provide ample opportunity for proponents to post within a focus.

Yeah... they're was no RPG during the first demogame. Care to try again?

Disagree - they may shrink, but not much. What will probably happen is those groups that do create a focus will maintain stable membership, and possibly cause other groups to form to oppose that focus. The interactions of a Dove vs a Hawk party would be quite interesting.

Doubtful, people will get bored of them, they won't have that "spark" anymore to them. They will leave, lose partcipation, and drop out of existance. Using the exact method Citizen Groups did inside of the Civ3 demogame.

Only other question is, at the gain of how many new players?

Gain? We only have around 55 active members, and this is the start of the Civ4 demogame. The second Civ3 democracy game had the same number of active members. Were behind, and as CFC as a whole is much larger than it was back then... we should have more.

Oh please, you know as well (and probably better than most) that these concepts are far from new, and have been in the DG for a long, long time. Why try to keep them behind hidden doors of inuendo and accusation? Shine the light of publicity on them, so most of these blocks can be seen.

You keep them behind hidden doors, because they have much less of an impact. They send slight shivers, instead of huge shockwaves.

Yeah... they're was no RPG during the first demogame. Care to try again?Where did I say an "official" RPG? That's your hangup. Care to try again?
Doubtful, people will get bored of them, they won't have that "spark" anymore to them. They will leave, lose partcipation, and drop out of existance. Using the exact method Citizen Groups did inside of the Civ3 demogame.Ah, Strider the enternal pessimist. We'll agree to disagree on this. I suspect we'll both be right and wrong, just to what extent won't be known for some time.
Gain? We only have around 55 active members, and this is the start of the Civ4 demogame. The second Civ3 democracy game had the same number of active members. Were behind, and as CFC as a whole is much larger than it was back then... we should have more. Sheesh - get out of the past, will ya? THIS DG has more active members than the past 3 or 4 have. THAT'S a gain. If you think it should have more - get out and recruit some. Be productive instead of whining and complaining.
You keep them behind hidden doors, because they have much less of an impact. They send slight shivers, instead of huge shockwaves.Oh, yeah, like that's a good thing. No, they don't cause slight shivers. The impact is much larger. It's darker and more insideous. Things like that belong in the light where everyone can see them and judge their impact. Nothing good comes from keeping such things secret.

-- Ravensfire

To all idiots:

My low iq'ed comment was not ment to offend. In fact i used it so i wouldn't offend. You all are far to smart and crafty to be idiots, or even imbeciles, so i called you low iq'ed people. Damn politcal correctness

:beer: sorry

Ah, Strider the enternal pessimist. We'll agree to disagree on this. I suspect we'll both be right and wrong, just to what extent won't be known for some time.

Agreed.

Sheesh - get out of the past, will ya? THIS DG has more active members than the past 3 or 4 have. THAT'S a gain. If you think it should have more - get out and recruit some. Be productive instead of whining and complaining.

Yes, the past 3 to 4 DG's have been mismanaged. Do you really want to start this discussion up again? I've yet to even attempt to read more of this constitution than what is needed for the Science Ministry. Based on the political parties already, I can already guess as to it's conditition.

You should know my feelings on why the last couple of Demogames have had low partcipation levels.

Whining and complaining? Yep, sounds like you. I'm being productive, I'm attempting to remove a portion of the game that I believe is hampering the games progress. What are you doing? Your defending a portion of the game that you believe is driving the games progress. I see very little differance. Were both doing what we think is best, the only differance is that I'm more open minded.

Oh, yeah, like that's a good thing. No, they don't cause slight shivers. The impact is much larger. It's darker and more insideous. Things like that belong in the light where everyone can see them and judge their impact. Nothing good comes from keeping such things secret.

The fall or the rise will have the same consequences in either case. Darker and more insideous? Depends on the circumstances, and in the large majority... it's not.

I recpect your opinion. And you are right, by my point of view i'm not helping myself, but those who like polictal parties, and those who are new players. When i joined, i was completely bewildered, and if not for the help and support i got from the early Destiny party, the IIP, and Aphawolf, i probably would have dropped out! But now i sound like a recovering druggie.

Citizen groups could achieve the same effect. Infact, I started the Coalition of Citizens to aid newcomers in understanding the game. If it wasn't for my two month absence, it would have been much more successful.

And from your point of veiw you are right, because you see politcial parties as unstable fun sucking enties of evil( ya no, paraphrasing). But you must llok at the good before the evil. How many new players have the parties helped gain confidence. IamSid was helpped by the idiots, Bengeance by the CUlturalists and Hawk-doves. All these people were helped to excedl by PARTIES. I no you will say its the same with CG, but its not, and i hope that is understood before we trudge on!

In this case, were have to agree to disagree. I believe the evil far outweighs the good, and the good can easily be accomplished with Citizen Groups without the evil.

Yes, the past 3 to 4 DG's have been mismanaged. Do you really want to start this discussion up again? I've yet to even attempt to read more of this constitution than what is needed for the Science Ministry. Based on the political parties already, I can already guess as to it's conditition.
.

And your repected unbaised opinion just flew ou the window in my book!

I think we can all admit that to some extent voting in the elections is influenced by "party" affiliation. But what evidence do you have that there was any party block voting?

And how do you propose to separate citizens groups from political parties? If the distinction between the two is block voting how do you think that could be controlled or eliminated?

And your repected unbaised opinion just flew ou the window in my book!

No opinion is unbaised. I am a loner, I like to do things myself.. and I like to handle my own problems. I do not like unity, unity causes a single goal, and single thought. It destroys the spread of ideas and creative thinking.

I wish to ban political parties, or atleast slate voting. I haven't tried hiding that.

And how do you propose to separate citizens groups from political parties? If the distinction between the two is block voting how do you think that could be controlled or eliminated?

Ban slate voting... I could careless if they still call them political parties. The name matters little to me. Just ban slate/block voting.

hopeless idealism. How dp you distiguish people with the same interest voting for people who represent those intrests. who belong to the same DG, from the current policitcal parties! I think your just against the name when it all boils down

Unless I am mistaken that has already been banned. No political party/citizens group is allowed to require members to vote in any particular way. That is part of the reason that all elections are private polls. Only the mods (I'm assuming) know who voted how unless the person voting decides to post thier votes.

hopeless idealism. How dp you distiguish people with the same interest voting for people who represent those intrests. who belong to the same DG, from the current policitcal parties! I think your just against the name when it all boils down

You don't distiguish them, each person choose's the candidate they think will do the best job. This allows everyone to be judged by they're ability, and not they're affiliation.

If I had free rein, there would be alot changed. Although, I'm sure that's the same for almost everyone else here. Everyone thinks they can do better, everyone thinks that they can improve. It's that singular thought that gives me hope we haven't lost the ability to think.

You can judge me however you want to, as long as you judge me as me, and not as a larger group. I will never respect any political party inside of this game, that is my personality... it defines me. If you dislike that, oh well, it's not changing. Will that disrespect effect my image of those that work with the party? Not at all, people have differant views than mine... hell... I don't think they're is a single person that shares my views.

Unless I am mistaken that has already been banned. No political party/citizens group is allowed to require members to vote in any particular way. That is part of the reason that all elections are private polls. Only the mods (I'm assuming) know who voted how unless the person voting decides to post thier votes.

Here's what I'd want to do:


Create an amendment that bans groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person.
Ban "campaign buddies," basically... no one can aid you in campaigning for a election.
Create a voulanteer committee that drafts up debate questions for the various offices each election period. Make the debates an organized portion o f the election progress, but make the answering of debate questions optional.

Here's what I'd want to do:
Create an amendment that bans groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person.
Ban "campaign buddies," basically... no one can aid you in campaigning for a election.
Create a voulanteer committee that drafts up debate questions for the various offices each election period. Make the debates an organized portion o f the election progress, but make the answering of debate questions optional.

I'm with you on the debates, would be a good use of time and help focus some of the question and answer time that happens before elections.

I think banning "campaign buddies" is impractical. Why should a citizen not be allowed to drum up support for someone they think will do a good job.

I also think that banning "groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person" is impractical and a violation of the rights of the citizens. If I as a citizen want to support a candidate I should not be prevented from doing so, just because other members of my citizen group/party also want to support that person.

If we look at real world examples these are basic "free speech" issues. When we get into a gray area of the issue like block voting we have to err on the side of personal freedom. Here I think that means trusting the citizens of the DG to vote those people they think most capable and not just those people that are in a citizens group/party.

I think banning "campaign buddies" is impractical. Why should a citizen not be allowed to drum up support for someone they think will do a good job.

People are allowed to voice support, and state there reason as to why they are supporting the candidate. They can not answer debate questions, etc. for the candidate.

I also think that banning "groups (as a whole) from supporting a single person" is impractical and a violation of the rights of the citizens. If I as a citizen want to support a candidate I should not be prevented from doing so, just because other members of my citizen group/party also want to support that person.

I meant agreeing, before the election, to vote/support for a certain candidate. If a large group of people happen to vote for the same candidate, it happens... as long as it's not an organized movement to do so.

In the sense that you are using for "campaign buddy" I agree that those regulations are reasonable.

For the other, I don't know that there is anyway to format an amendment to make that sort of distinction possible. It seems to me that the work involved in verifying something along those lines is massive compared to the returns from the work.

For the other, I don't know that there is anyway to format an amendment to make that sort of distinction possible. It seems to me that the work involved in verifying something along those lines is massive compared to the returns from the work.

It's possible, I've got alot of experience in writing constitutional amendments. Trust me, it's possible.

Although, as I've said in the past. Including a "Book of Comments" with each amendment names inside of the Constituion/Code of Laws that basically summarizes what a amendment's purpose is (in plain terms.. none of the fancy constitution writing) would be a huge benefit. Plus it would aid the Judicial Review process greatly.

It's possible, I've got alot of experience in writing constitutional amendments. Trust me, it's possible.

Although, as I've said in the past. Including a "Book of Comments" with each amendment names inside of the Constituion/Code of Laws that basically summarizes what a amendment's purpose is (in plain terms.. none of the fancy constitution writing) would be a huge benefit. Plus it would aid the Judicial Review process greatly.I like it. How do we get that done?

How can you speak of elitism when most parties don't deny a citizen membership even if he is already part of another one? That seems over the top to begin with as far as poltical parties are concerned.

And slate voting is present everywhere, that's a fact (even in citizen groups, it's unspoken but a factor). But once part of a party it is you who ultimately decides if you wish to vote along party lines or not. Besides, the ultimate object of a political party is representation; if you are one who believes in the party's principles then you will have a good chance of getting someone elected who will carry out the principles you believe in.

WHile your ideas seems okay, it seems more of a suppression than a solution!

I like it. How do we get that done?

First we must drag through the constitution discussion threads and try to find out the purpose of all the amendments. Sending messages to the authors of certain amendments to clarify what is meant by a certain phrase (or what is being implied).

Secondly, we must then use the collected data to create the summary of the amendments purpose.

Thirdly, we must drain the blood from a thousand virgins using there flesh as the pages, and their blood as the ink. Using their fresh hearts, we must pray to the great lord Acerbity to grant our book a holy light, inwhich all who read will be enlightened.

----------

That last part may be hard to do (Incase anyone is wondering.. Acerbity is just another word for sarcasm).

And slate voting is present everywhere, that's a fact (even in citizen groups, it's unspoken but a factor). But once part of a party it is you who ultimately decides if you wish to vote along party lines or not. Besides, the ultimate object of a political party is representation; if you are one who believes in the party's principles then you will have a good chance of getting someone elected who will carry out the principles you believe in.

It's always your choice, but at what cost? Not voting for one of your party members may make them angry, and cause your party not to vote for you. Without the support of your party, your chance to get elected is zero.

I have the reputation to get elected without the support of a party, but there are many newer players who do not have that opportunity.

How can you speak of elitism when most parties don't deny a citizen membership even if he is already part of another one? That seems over the top to begin with as far as poltical parties are concerned.

The only reason why they don't deny membership is because denying membership is against forum policy. In past demogames, several people have already attempted to claim that the demogame rules should be above forum policy. If given the chance, they would deny membership.

It's always your choice, but at what cost? Not voting for one of your party members may make them angry, and cause your party not to vote for you. Without the support of your party, your chance to get elected is zero.

I have the reputation to get elected without the support of a party, but there are many newer players who do not have that opportunity.
How is it possible to tell? Aren't all our votes just little tallies on a poll? Keep your mouth shut if you don't vote for your own party's canidate, or else tell the party why you don't think he's qualified. That's all part of the fun of it, seeing how your conduct and decisions affect your political life.

How is it possible to tell? Aren't all our votes just little tallies on a poll? Keep your mouth shut if you don't vote for your own party's canidate, or else tell the party why you don't think he's qualified. That's all part of the fun of it, seeing how your conduct and decisions affect your political life.

It's possible to tell who voted for who, and it can be noticed by complete accident by someone who is observant enough. Also, this game is not centered around politics. They have other DG-like games that center around political parties and politics.

First we must drag through the constitution discussion threads and try to find out the purpose of all the amendments. Sending messages to the authors of certain amendments to clarify what is meant by a certain phrase (or what is being implied).

Secondly, we must then use the collected data to create the summary of the amendments purpose.


Are you talking about the Articles and Sections?

For Articles, it's extremely easy to get this information. For Sections it's a little more difficult but still not what I'd call hard. All one needs to do is ask, and as I see it you've asked. What format do you want the information in? :D

Are you talking about the Articles and Sections?

For Articles, it's extremely easy to get this information. For Sections it's a little more difficult but still not what I'd call hard. All one needs to do is ask, and as I see it you've asked. What format do you want the information in? :D

The same format they write the for dummies books in.

If you have any specific questions about either the Constitution or CoL, may I suggest a visit to the Help Desk (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157085)? :D You're also welcome to join the staff there and share your knowledge.

Pick an article or section, preferably one which you find difficult. I'll try to write something plain about it. This will be a challenge for me but we must all face our demons eventually. ;)

It's possible to tell who voted for who, and it can be noticed by complete accident by someone who is observant enough. Also, this game is not centered around politics. They have other DG-like games that center around political parties and politics.

That's an interesting claim, forgive me for prying but how? I can think of one way, by happening to be online when the other person casts their vote, and refreshing the page. Of course there another even more obvious way, by looking at what people say about who they voted for. :crazyeye:

Allow me to reiterate "that's all part of the fun of it"...

So, (in part) because of possiblilities or accidents that may or may not lead to one group of people not liking a citizen in one election, you think political parties should have no place here? Am I close? Also, please refrain from telling me what this game is or is not about. It means different things to different people. You may ignore politics if you wish, and even fight to abolish it, but they exist here just as much as they do in the real world. Consider that the DGame is more than getting a group of people together to play a Civilization IV, version1.52 game in order to satisfy Victory Conditions to beat the Artificial Intelligence.

Citizen groups are fickle, they come and go as game conditions change (e.g. an Explorer's Union at a 1BC Civ3 DGame). Done creatively, they can change thought and imprint themselves on memory, but exist only to fufill a goal. Political parties have the power to sustain themselves and transcend the ages, focusing on game-long ideals.

That's interesting, you have two members who have not posted in the thread.
Some are in College and have classes from 9-7 on a Tuesday and a relationship :p ;). I did not bothered to log in yesterday because I felt so fatuged from having a long class day.


An amendment to eliminate parties will be very difficult. It will be completely impossible to ban slate voting, because if there are no parties people will just go back into the shady world of private chat rooms and PMs.
Difficult, yes. Impossible, that word is not in my vocabulary.

[QUOTE=CivGeneral]Some are in College and have classes from 9-7 on a Tuesday and a relationship :p ;). I did not bothered to log in yesterday because I felt so fatuged from having a long class day.
QUOTE]

That is proving his point that this group was created in chat or something along them lines.

That's an interesting claim, forgive me for prying but how? I can think of one way, by happening to be online when the other person casts their vote, and refreshing the page. Of course there another even more obvious way, by looking at what people say about who they voted for. :crazyeye:

Basically, if you observe the Who's Online at the top of the page, and add in a players goals/personality.. you can make an extremely close guess on every vote placed. Not hard to do, I've been doing it for months now.

So, (in part) because of possiblilities or accidents that may or may not lead to one group of people not liking a citizen in one election, you think political parties should have no place here? Am I close? Also, please refrain from telling me what this game is or is not about. It means different things to different people. You may ignore politics if you wish, and even fight to abolish it, but they exist here just as much as they do in the real world. Consider that the DGame is more than getting a group of people together to play a Civilization IV, version1.52 game in order to satisfy Victory Conditions to beat the Artificial Intelligence.

The game now only surivives to feed several peoples selfish ambitions. After the skys fall down, what other purpose will we have to fight for? Or would you rather just lay in ecstasy, blind to that which is burning? Were lighting flames under the feet of those that have caused no harm, letting them burn for our demented pleasures.

Let your egoism rip and tear you, however often you like.

That is proving his point that this group was created in chat or something along them lines.

They haven't posted, because I wanted to get acouple of members to join before I posted the thread. I explained the party to them, and asked them to join. There was no cooperative movement, I figured that the party would be more successful with a larger starting member-base. People are more likely to join, if there jumping on the bandwagon.

Everyone feels the fear of uncertainty, yet, why allow the fear to steer? Maybe it's time to find out that your the one who should be behind the wheel? Only when you drive yourself is the light found.

Political parties divide, it's taking a group of people, and then drawing a line between them. Yeah, before that line, some people may have converged in one pack or the other, but the division was never solid.

Tell me, how do political parties aid those new to the game? They start off with large amounts of data and useless information, move into complex ranking systems, and contain platforms that requires prior-demogame knowledge to understand. What purpose do they serve, other than to cause these type of arguements? A Citizen Group can achieve the same effects, without the slate voting.

I've seen the comments that political parties make the game more fun, and I repeat once again, it's no more fun than a citizen group is capable of. The only purpose of political parties is to make sure your elected, which makes the game unfair to those who don't share the same advantage.

Strider..as someone who is very new to demo games. I joined the "partee" for some of the reasons you state. Also, I joined it also because I thought thats how it was done in demo games.

I would rather be an independent but I dont think I would get a vote( well maybe I would vote for me) in an election since I only have about 12 posts.

Strider..as someone who is very new to demo games. I joined the "partee" for some of the reasons you state. Also, I joined it also because I thought thats how it was done in demo games.

I would rather be an independent but I dont think I would get a vote( well maybe I would vote for me) in an election since I only have about 12 posts.

It is the way it's done currently, but not the way it has to be, or the way it was done before. In real life politics, political parties are a necessity. Why? Because with thousands of people, a single individual will not make any differance. Inside of a game this small, the individuals can make an impact.

Your posts don't matter, it's the quality of the posts that matters. You just have to get involved inside of the game, get a reputation.

If your unsure as to how to get involved you can just ask here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=133196). As I've said many times, I'll be happy to help out anyone interested inside of the game. Also, if your alittle embrassed about asking in public, I keep my PM box pretty empty. So be free to ask VIA PM to.

Your posts don't matter, it's the quality of the posts that matters. You just have to get involved inside of the game, get a reputation.


Well said! I totally agree with this statement, because I'm a perfect example of someone who did exactly that. Back in DG3 I showed up at one of the term 1 chats to see what the game was about, and the next day started posting solid advice on the in-game situation, which took my post count into 2 digits. That small amount of on-topic comments were enough to get me elected as Science Advisor for term 2.

Several of us old-timers (some older than others) go out of our way to support and vote for new people who are solid contributors. In fact one just came to my attention yesterday. They have to do their own work, I agree with Strider on that point, but advice is given freely. :)

Back to the subject which prompted all this back and forth -- parties aren't needed for someone to make progress in the game. I personally wouldn't want someone who is a good party organizer but can't play the game to get elected to an office, and I am independent and vote for the candidate who understands what's going on. Even so, I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle.

Even so, I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle.

You should know me better than this, I've already managed to loosen the foundations... now it's just a matter of taking the stones down.

I'm going to "knock" the first stone down, hopefully, soon. I plan on taking a look at the election process inside of the constitution tommorow, and code in the debates I talked about earlier. This should atleast, allow new candidates a better chance to get noticed, and decrease the power of political parties.

Okay, instead of just writing the amendment up.. I'll get some discussion going on the topics that are for crafting the amendment:

1) The council that makes the debate questions, how should the members be chosen? Appointed by president (or any other official)? Volunteer's who are then accepted by a poll? Possibly even elected?

2) Where should the debates take place? Should they have their own thread that inside of the Citizens Forum (or one of the other forums)?
--------------

Well... damn. I knew I should have posted this before supper, instead of after. I had this huge list of topics that needed to be discussed, decided to wait untill after supper to post them... and now I've forgotten them all. :(

Okay, instead of just writing the amendment up.. I'll get some discussion going on the topics that are for crafting the amendment:

1) The council that makes the debate questions, how should the members be chosen? Appointed by president (or any other official)? Volunteer's who are then accepted by a poll? Possibly even elected?

2) Where should the debates take place? Should they have their own thread that inside of the Citizens Forum (or one of the other forums)?
--------------

Well... damn. I knew I should have posted this before supper, instead of after. I had this huge list of topics that needed to be discussed, decided to wait untill after supper to post them... and now I've forgotten them all. :(

Do you mean only people who are on this debate team can ask the questions or is this in addition to others asking questions?

Well, given the idea of free speech (inside the forum rules) I think it can only be "in addition to any questions the citizens might want to ask".

Volunteers of course, unless you can show a reason to have a process behind it.

The debates should take place in the nomination and/or election threads and must take place sometime between beginning of nominations and end of elections. We can't afford to elongate the process even longer, it already results in low participation in the game itself during the election cycle.

Do you mean only people who are on this debate team can ask the questions or is this in addition to others asking questions?

Anyone can ask a question of a candidate at any time, that should never be limited.

Volunteers of course, unless you can show a reason to have a process behind it.

No real reason behind it, just wondering if someone did have a reason to have a process behind it.

The debates should take place in the nomination and/or election threads and must take place sometime between beginning of nominations and end of elections. We can't afford to elongate the process even longer, it already results in low participation in the game itself during the election cycle.

We can have the "debate process" run the entire length of the election process. From the moment nominations open, to the time the polls close.

here goes. t

he idiot's partee is so named because it is not a rigid thingy that demands dogmatic obedience to a slate of candidates. more like a keg party. Tis more of a gathering place for like minded fools. Stooges support each other cause we think alike (and for the most part have a history here at CFC). There is no requirement to vote for anyone; I've voted for someone who sent me on vacation.

you're being elitist in forming a debate team. let anyone ask what they will. their intelligence or bufoonery (hi, that would be me), will be revealed by their questions. go with the volunteers. we have too many polls already.

the debate process sounds wonderful. As long as it is reasoned debated, there is no reason why a darkhorse candidate can't win. if parties are against a candidate and the individual members can't state why they voted against, you've got your smoking gun (which is against the constitution IIRC)

argh, what the hell is up with the god damn indents. Makes it impossible to copy and paste anything from the constitution, and have it turn out correctly. That, and the indents just screws things up on older browsers.

Anyway, here's adding the "debates" into the constitution (well.. code of laws actually).

Section 5 Elections

A) Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.

IA. Ballots shall have the names of all the candidates for a given office plus Abstain.

II. Nominations for Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

III. Elections may only be held for offices that exist at the time of election.

Section 5 Elections

A) Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.

IA. Ballots shall have the names of all the candidates for a given office plus Abstain.

II. Nominations for Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

III. Elections may only be held for offices that exist at the time of election.

IV. Debates shall start with nominations and close with the election polls. Any demogame citizen may submit a debate question, inside of the nominations thread during the nomination period and inside of the election poll during the election period. Candidates are not required to answer the questions.

---------

Just a quick question, but shouldn't "No citizen may run for two poistions" (well.... gotta be more professional than that, but you get the idea) be inside of this section also? I took a quick look around, and didn't see anything about being unable to run for two poistions (just says you can't hold two poistions).

Figured we might as well knock out that also, gives us one amendment poll instead of two.

he idiot's partee is so named because it is not a rigid thingy that demands dogmatic obedience to a slate of candidates. more like a keg party. Tis more of a gathering place for like minded fools. Stooges support each other cause we think alike (and for the most part have a history here at CFC). There is no requirement to vote for anyone; I've voted for someone who sent me on vacation.

you're being elitist in forming a debate team. let anyone ask what they will. their intelligence or bufoonery (hi, that would be me), will be revealed by their questions. go with the volunteers. we have too many polls already.

the debate process sounds wonderful. As long as it is reasoned debated, there is no reason why a darkhorse candidate can't win. if parties are against a candidate and the individual members can't state why they voted against, you've got your smoking gun (which is against the constitution IIRC)

I will repeat again, like minded people can get together and form a citizens group. The only reason to have political parties is to get you elected, you wouldn't need a political party to get elected, if it wasn't for political parties.

That basically sums it up.

just to fine tune this, but why not let someone have more than one position?

if the populace thinks he or she can handle it, why not let someone serve in more than one place? if someone goes overboard we could alway vote them out.

just to fine tune this, but why not let someone have more than one position?

if the populace thinks he or she can handle it, why not let someone serve in more than one place? if someone goes overboard we could alway vote them out.

Having the same person hold two government poistions, knocks someone else out of the government. Making the government more centralised, but less democratic. This also kills the chance of newer players succesfully winning an election.

Strider, why do we need a law for this? I just can't see a reason for it. Are you concerned that someone will try to ban debates or something?

-- Ravensfire

Strider, why do we need a law for this? I just can't see a reason for it. Are you concerned that someone will try to ban debates or something?

-- Ravensfire

Think like you haven't been here for a year or longer. How is someone new to the game suppose to know there is even a concept known as debates, much less what the hell they are? Yeah, I know what debates are, because I've been here for a few years. If we've all been here for years, and were a closed group.. there would be no point to doing it.

We put it there to make it official, and to cut down confusion.

Once/If the amendment passes, I'll make a thread that is just a database of debate questions for each office. People can submit them any time, and when nominations start up.. I'll post them.

Having the same person hold two government poistions, knocks someone else out of the government. Making the government more centralised, but less democratic. This also kills the chance of newer players succesfully winning an election.


I agree with the one knocks out another theory, but because the peeps elect one person to more than one position, doesn't make it less democractic

After further consideration, i'll agree with the one person for one spot theory to encourage more participation.

If I've understood u, you're trying to broaden the base. all for that

You're right, Strider, they wouldn't figure it out when they see the debates happening.

-- Ravensfire

You're right, Strider, they wouldn't figure it out when they see the debates happening.

-- Ravensfire

What debates? We don't have debates yet. :rolleyes:

we just din't label them as such, but they were there!

V. Debates shall start with nominations and close with the election polls. Any demogame citizen may submit a debate question, inside of the nominations thread during the nomination period and inside of the election poll during the election period. Candidates are not required to answer the questions.
I thought this was standard practice since I responded to any questions asked in the SoW thread. Does this needed to be added or is it enough that it already happens?

What debates? We don't have debates yet. :rolleyes:

And is there a legal reason for this? No.

The problem is not the law, it's people not posing questions. This includes the large number of long-term players that know quite well about debates, etc.

The problem is not the law. It's apathy. You've got the right idea with a citizen's group - you don't need anything more than that.

-- Ravensfire

Wow, this conversation is... interesting. It has taken me varied parts of the afternoon to go from the first post to the last, and this certaintly is an interesting thread. In my oppinion, people have the right to vote for who they want to vote for. As long as they only have the right to their own vote, which is their property, nothing is wrong with the democracy. Just because people join parties does not mean that parties strip them of their right to vote. Our current President is an independent, as is our Minister of Science. I personally voted for both of those individuals, even though they did NOT belong to one of my various POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. People don't join parties to get elected, they join parties because thats their way of saying "This is what I believe in." This right to assembly is in in of itself one of the most important aspects of any democracy. One vote doesn't make a difference. 50% of the vote makes a difference. Its not that one vote is useless, but that unified votes are what CHOOSE the BEST course in a democracy. And parties are simply a method of unifying ideologies. I personally view voting party for party sake as a very bad thing. And I also believe that in a partyless system, it is more difficult for citizens to join together and enact the will of the people.

But all of this is just one person's view of democracy. What is democracy but a word created and defined by man? Subject to change as different people interpret it since all language and communication varies from one person to another. And all of this coming from a member of the disenfranchised American Libertarian Party. Yes, I feel as though people vote straight dem or rep in elections, and dont even consider my candidates, but without the ability TO ASSEMBLE, I would not have fellow libertarians with which to expand my ideas and work with me to support our ideals. Which is what we vote on. Political Parties to some are defined methods of voting, but I feel that for most demogame players, it is a method of supporting one another with common beliefs because, well, thats who you want to support. You want to support your beliefs, which SOMETIMES manifest in fellow party members. Not always, but more likely then not. Anyway, just one persons rant on the subject, both sides of the fence are ok with me, I would just feel that I naturally have a group of people I agree with and would prefer to work with them and compromise with others than just be thrown into the ring for "Shout the loudest for your cause and hope your heard among 30 voices instead of 4 or 5 distinct voices which can be interpreted"

And is there a legal reason for this? No.

The problem is not the law, it's people not posing questions. This includes the large number of long-term players that know quite well about debates, etc.

The problem is not the law. It's apathy. You've got the right idea with a citizen's group - you don't need anything more than that.

-- Ravensfire

The problem with people not asking questions, is because they don't know they can ask questions. Thus... the law.

Sorry, but I have to agree with ravensfire, apathy is more of the reason, it's the same in Civ3 demogame. Questions were asked in the elections and candidates responded. Even if I were unaware of what's going on, if I see someone asking a question I take that as a good example that I can ask my own question and I will do so if I have one.

One thing I have noticed, the Election Office is lost in the Censor's thread, so there is not an obvious place to go (without reading the rules and finding out who is responsible for what) to ask questions about the elections.

Our current President is an independent, as is our Minister of Science. I personally voted for both of those individuals, even though they did NOT belong to one of my various POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS.

Yes, but Daveshack and myself have been in this game for a long time. I'm not really worried about losing an election, I honestly don't care one way or the other. Both Daveshack and myself have been here for awhile, we've got pretty large shadows, and it's hard not to notice us, this thread is proof enough of it.

I'm worried about political parties ruining the chance of election for newer players, not for myself. Almost the entire Term 2 election was made up of either DG veterns, or politically-affiliated candidates.

People don't join parties to get elected, they join parties because thats their way of saying "This is what I believe in." This right to assembly is in in of itself one of the most important aspects of any democracy. One vote doesn't make a difference. 50% of the vote makes a difference. Its not that one vote is useless, but that unified votes are what CHOOSE the BEST course in a democracy. And parties are simply a method of unifying ideologies. I personally view voting party for party sake as a very bad thing. And I also believe that in a partyless system, it is more difficult for citizens to join together and enact the will of the people.

So, instead of just coming out and saying what they believe in, people must hide behind a banner? I repeat again, Unity does nothing for us. Uniting together, organizing ourselves, it destroys creative thinking. It makes one mind, one thought. Only through oppisition is our plans and ideas made strong.

But all of this is just one person's view of democracy. What is democracy but a word created and defined by man? Subject to change as different people interpret it since all language and communication varies from one person to another. And all of this coming from a member of the disenfranchised American Libertarian Party. Yes, I feel as though people vote straight dem or rep in elections, and dont even consider my candidates, but without the ability TO ASSEMBLE, I would not have fellow libertarians with which to expand my ideas and work with me to support our ideals. Which is what we vote on. Political Parties to some are defined methods of voting, but I feel that for most demogame players, it is a method of supporting one another with common beliefs because, well, thats who you want to support. You want to support your beliefs, which SOMETIMES manifest in fellow party members. Not always, but more likely then not. Anyway, just one persons rant on the subject, both sides of the fence are ok with me, I would just feel that I naturally have a group of people I agree with and would prefer to work with them and compromise with others than just be thrown into the ring for "Shout the loudest for your cause and hope your heard among 30 voices instead of 4 or 5 distinct voices which can be interpreted"

Coming from someone who is an independent in real life politics also, and will never join any party (much less the two major ones). Shouting usually gets you ignored even more... Real life politics is much of what I don't want to see happen here. The Democrats and Republican parties are just so strong, they can do almost anything they want to.

Wouldn't you prefer having your voice heard, not because of your membership, but because of what your actually saying?

Sorry, but I have to agree with ravensfire, apathy is more of the reason, it's the same in Civ3 demogame. Questions were asked in the elections and candidates responded. Even if I were unaware of what's going on, if I see someone asking a question I take that as a good example that I can ask my own question and I will do so if I have one.

One thing I have noticed, the Election Office is lost in the Censor's thread, so there is not an obvious place to go (without reading the rules and finding out who is responsible for what) to ask questions about the elections.

So it's apathy that the large majority of the people who asked questions, were vets carried over from DG3? Why is it mostly the people who's been here for a long time who's asking questions?

Because we've been here for a long time, we know how the process works. So were not overly scared of making a fool of ourselves.

Then carry on asking questions, show by example, maybe they just couldn't think of any questions to ask.

Put a statement in the opening post of the nomination/election thread that says people can ask questions just in case they don't realise.

I really don't think we need yet another law for it, which unless they go and read through the laws they won't find out about anyway.

I really don't think we need yet another law for it, which unless they go and read through the laws they won't find out about anyway.

Which goes right back to the citizen group I was planning to open up after the law passed.

But you can have the citizen group without the law, therefore keep it simple, post the group, ask for questions, no need for a law.

But you can have the citizen group without the law, therefore keep it simple, post the group, ask for questions, no need for a law.

Yes, but with the law.. it gives us a general guideline for people to look at. It allows us something to cite as a reference, instead of just sounding like your saying "Well, this is an idea I had when I was drunk last night!"

People new to the game who are going to have the common sense to read the rules and understand them are also going to understand that they can ask questions etc therefore the law is pretty pointless.

Why is it mostly the people who's been here for a long time who's asking questions?

Because we've been here for a long time, we know how the process works. So were not overly scared of making a fool of ourselves.


Lots of new people are intimidated by post count; "if they have that many they must be smart". And thus they defer to the old timers. Need to shuck that attitude.

It allows us something to cite as a reference, instead of just sounding like your saying "Well, this is an idea I had when I was drunk last night!"
I do that all the time. It will be nice to have an actual source. :lol:

IMHO, I don't think we should get too caught up in the form over function debate. Regardless of whether a law is passed, those who have read this thread should be emboldened to ask questions by the very nature of the discourse here.

The smart candidate will note a comment made by someone and ask "what did you mean by that? thus drawing more info and possibly more support

I do that all the time. It will be nice to have an actual source. :lol:

Then you understand the purpose of an actual related source to cite. Hell, I could use my DVD manual, but I think people may catch on after awhile.

So, instead of just coming out and saying what they believe in, people must hide behind a banner? I repeat again, Unity does nothing for us. Uniting together, organizing ourselves, it destroys creative thinking. It makes one mind, one thought. Only through oppisition is our plans and ideas made strong.

That is quite unfair. Joining a party is not hiding behind a banner. I personally consider my political parties as a badge of honor, a shining example of what I believe in. We don't have the time to read EACH AND EVERY persons political ideals. Well at least not all of us. With political parties, people can understand BASIC beliefs at a glance. You may not know what JOJO's political ideas are, but you do know what the Party for Ultimate JOJO stands for, assuming you've read all the parties platforms. And when you do want to know a persons politcal specifics, all you have to do is ask =]. Imagine if you had to explain your basic principles EVERY TIME you met someone new. But with a few simple words Member of the POOPOO Party, people get your gist. Its a way of communicating ideals more efficiently, and acts almost as an introduction to a deeper political discussion. I personally feel that it gives order and momentum to the political scene that stimulates debate and differences, not similarities. No parties just breeds confusion.

As for unification as worthless, I beg to differ. Its not like by parties we mean "THE 1984 PARTY" unification. The one thought one mind state with a super-race. We mean assemblies with a mission. Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. had not been able to get a unified front. America dissunifed would much rather have remained segregated. Imagine if Mahatma Ghandi had not used unification. Imagine if he tried to change India by himself as an independent. It took millions of indians united in a cause to CHANGE India. Change takes a new idea, and a following to back it. That is the way of democracy in my eyes.

With freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, people are BOUND to dissagree. Its just human nature. So opposition will remain, and therefor continue to breed creative solutions. Creativity will not die with parties.

We can have Unity and Disunity and gain the benfits of both. Perhaps you have heard the famous zen question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Each hand represents self and other. When they are seperate, that is when we view the world as myself, and that other person. When we bring the hands together and clap, that is when we make a sound. That is unity of self and other. But if we leave the hands together, the sound ceases. So Self and Other are both different and one. This is the wisest way to have the government. Unity and Disunity. Then our nation will clap.

That is quite unfair. Joining a party is not hiding behind a banner. I personally consider my political parties as a badge of honor, a shining example of what I believe in. We don't have the time to read EACH AND EVERY persons political ideals. Well at least not all of us. With political parties, people can understand BASIC beliefs at a glance. You may not know what JOJO's political ideas are, but you do know what the Party for Ultimate JOJO stands for, assuming you've read all the parties platforms. And when you do want to know a persons politcal specifics, all you have to do is ask =]. Imagine if you had to explain your basic principles EVERY TIME you met someone new. But with a few simple words Member of the POOPOO Party, people get your gist. Its a way of communicating ideals more efficiently, and acts almost as an introduction to a deeper political discussion. I personally feel that it gives order and momentum to the political scene that stimulates debate and differences, not similarities. No parties just breeds confusion.

We've had no parties for the 3 to 4 years. This communication of ideals, does little, your introduction starts in the middle of a greater text. This order and momentum creates debate and differences how? It aids the spread of ideas, how? Instead of 30 differant ideas, we have what now? 3 ideas, one for each party?

As for unification as worthless, I beg to differ. Its not like by parties we mean "THE 1984 PARTY" unification. The one thought one mind state with a super-race. We mean assemblies with a mission. Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. had not been able to get a unified front. America dissunifed would much rather have remained segregated. Imagine if Mahatma Ghandi had not used unification. Imagine if he tried to change India by himself as an independent. It took millions of indians united in a cause to CHANGE India. Change takes a new idea, and a following to back it. That is the way of democracy in my eyes.

Your using real life examples for a game. This is a government of 30, not a government of 200 million. It is possible to be heard without support in a government of 30, it's not possible in a government of 200 million. You do not need a political party in this climate.

With freedom of speech and freedom to assemble, people are BOUND to dissagree. Its just human nature. So opposition will remain, and therefor continue to breed creative solutions. Creativity will not die with parties.

It already has, I opened the science discussion 3 days ago. The only opposition I get is from my own deputy, and thats only because I asked for the opposition. I made my own plan, merely to get discussion started, the goal of the thread is for others to make differant plans (or to modify my own), and to discuss all of them. 3 days.... unopposed.

We can have Unity and Disunity and gain the benfits of both. Perhaps you have heard the famous zen question "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Each hand represents self and other. When they are seperate, that is when we view the world as myself, and that other person. When we bring the hands together and clap, that is when we make a sound. That is unity of self and other. But if we leave the hands together, the sound ceases. So Self and Other are both different and one. This is the wisest way to have the government. Unity and Disunity. Then our nation will clap.

"Independent liberty creates independent power, and as a nation is just a collection of independents, the nation with the most political independence is the most powerful."

The word liberty means political independence, the act of being free from restraints. It means the right and power to express ones beliefs. By forming political parties, you deny others the power to express themselves.

It already has, I opened the science discussion 3 days ago. The only opposition I get is from my own deputy, and thats only because I asked for the opposition. I made my own plan, merely to get discussion started, the goal of the thread is for others to make differant plans (or to modify my own), and to discuss all of them. 3 days.... unopposed.

Oh no! One discussion that everyone pretty much agreed upon! Terrible, just terrible. But, ahhh, try reading up on the concept of "Hasty Generalization" - you just fell into that trap.

Please note the city 2 discussion - disagreement there. Shocking, I know, people sometimes are in general agreement, sometimes they aren't.

-- Ravensfire

Oh no! One discussion that everyone pretty much agreed upon! Terrible, just terrible. But, ahhh, try reading up on the concept of "Hasty Generalization" - you just fell into that trap.

Please note the city 2 discussion - disagreement there. Shocking, I know, people sometimes are in general agreement, sometimes they aren't.

-- Ravensfire

Wow, it's a disagreement that everyone agreed with. Simply amazing... your logic is just stunning.

Wow, it's a disagreement that everyone agreed with. Simply amazing... your logic is just stunning.

No, no they didn't. Good try though.

-- Ravensfire

Wow, it's a disagreement that everyone agreed with. Simply amazing... your logic is just stunning.

Well they didnt-Check the poll.

Well they didnt-Check the poll.

Yes... the poll is 22-2. My point still stands.

And just exactly why was that poll posted again?

Oh yeah, some disagreement ...

Thanks for proving my point, Strider.

-- Ravensfire

And just exactly why was that poll posted again?

Oh yeah, some disagreement ...

Thanks for proving my point, Strider.

-- Ravensfire

Systemic defamation :lol:

One person disagreed, but everyone (well.. everyone except two people) agreed with that disagreement. If they're making it, then they're pushing it, and they're leading us along.

Yes... the poll is 22-2. My point still stands.

That still isnt everyone, it is a majority.

That still isnt everyone, it is a majority.

It's a hell of alot more than a majority... it's 92% of the vote.

It is interesting to note that a relatively independent newcomer, who according to anti-party theory should be unable to infiltrate our supposedly party-dominated society, was able to effect such a dramatic change. Could it be perhaps that the premise that parties have undue influence might be founded on a fallacy? :mischief:

One example does not make a proof, we'll have to see if a trend develops. Logically though, it is much easier to show something which is not influenced by party membership than it is to show something which a party does influence, given that we can never show whether individual decisions are in fact driven by the party.

ya, WOW strider. Chill found a good alternative and presented it after the poll. He Pm'ed people to drum up support and then made a vERY VeRY good case for it. If you can't regonize that, or if you are going to patronize him, thaty is not fair to him or any of us.

It is interesting to note that a relatively independent newcomer, who according to anti-party theory should be unable to infiltrate our supposedly party-dominated society, was able to effect such a dramatic change. Could it be perhaps that the premise that parties have undue influence might be founded on a fallacy?

I might also point out that this relative newcomer is on the membership list of the first post in this thread ;). Chill and Sigma are both perfect examples of how you gain reputation. He's doing thing's exactly the way I've been saying.

Some interesting comments from pass discussions on this issue:

I actually think that most people hate me, or are simply unaware of my existance. Very few people have posted support for me in elections, though many are vocal supports of my opponent.

The Strider - EA team, though... Both have won every election they've been in...

It has been found that, in Democracy Games, that politcal parties only serve to increase bickering. This causes the game to loose the fun factor, along with the fact that nothing gets done. I believe that our lack of parties has allowed us to reach the state we are in today. Of the democracy games I've seen, Fanatika must have the most stable rule set. Since the current rules have been adopted, we have not experienced a major conflict.

The reason political parties are disallowed is to avoid people voting in blocks along party lines. If it happens because people happen to agree with each other, that is fine. If it happens because it is organized, that is another story altogether.

Now I understand this thread. It took me two pages to realize we weren't talking about the post-election parties we keep forgetting to invite Strider to...

And the Green party would have never needed to form a party if it weren't a two-party system in the US, that only the rich can play in. Sorry, I don't see the logic in your approach...

Since the inception of the Civ3 Democracy Game here at CFC, there has never been a legal political party. We finished the first game in five months. Apolytonia, in its fifth term, is still trudging through the middle ages. Granted, the play was extremely accelerated in that first term. However, when is the last time the game play grinded to a halt because of major disagreements of two groups of people? We have arguments over the science queue every once in a while, but we haven't completely put off a chat.

My point is, our democracy game has run fine without parties, is running fine without parties, and will always run fine without parties. If you want to be in a party, I suggest you go to another demogame, or start your own.

This is a discussion, with intent to drive changes/additions in the laws to prevent the selling or trading of votes using the coinage of the RPG game.

The RPG game is an optional component of the Demo game overall. However, the recent trend toward bartering or outright auctioning of citizen votes is something crosses over from this optional component of our system, to the serious, impacting of the actual game side.

As Judge Advocate, I feel that there is sufficient implied law to support a PI against anyone who encourages bribery, however, I feel that we should directly, within the Code of Laws, mandate against this.

Since they are not a necessity for an effective election campaign, I do not see what good they would actually do. I do think that they would cause an unnecessary duplicity in regards to many issues, where those who hold a very valid "third" point of view would not be heard.

And, Neutral leader, it is not a matter of people telling you what is wrong with them, but rather you need to tell us what is so good about them.

Like I said, political parties do anything but give the people more say. Those that do not agree with the views of a major party are essentially 'swept under the rug'. It also causes unnecessary discord among the citizenry.

It has nothing to do with what someone's title is anyway. If you make a good point, people will probably listen to you. And BTW, a good chunk of our citizens are very new to the game. If you expect that everything you say will be take as gospel, you are going to be disappointed, and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense. Just a little bit of advice. Take it or leave it.

I cannot see political parties being anything but artificially divisive. In the current situation the citizenry need never feel under any obligation to argue a position or cast a vote that conflicts with their beliefs regarding what is in the best interests of the nation. Everyone can state their opinion or make a proposal, whatsoever it may be, to the entire citizenry and know that it stands or falls on its own merits rather than on whether their party commands the greatest support. As a number of my fellow citizens have pointed out in this thread, political parties would just serve to stifle individual voices and IMO could cause citizens who do not belong to the controlling party to leave the demogame due to their effective disenfranchisement. Would you want to bother with a game in which you can have little or no say?
You argue that newer citizens' opinions and ideas do not hold any weight in the demogame, but I certainly did not find that to be the case when I first joined and have not seen any shift towards elitism in the time since. It's not your postcount or the length of time you have been a citizen that determines whether your ideas are taken up around here, but rather the nature of your idea itself and the force of the arguments which you use to advance it. I feel that this is the way the demogame should be, and have no desire to see that way of doing things wiped out by partisanship.

I am against political parties and have a real world example. When in college (some time ago), my friends in the student government and I formed a de facto party to help raise awareness of things we felt were important. In the end we basically controlled the student govt', had no input from anyone else (why bother, as they could *never* win in any issue we opposed) and alienated most of the thoughtful people who would have been involved had we not locked everything up. Sad to say, we also ended up with some positions filled by people who agreed with us, but were not terribly motivated by anything other than being on the winning team. The following year we ditched the party idea, and had an incredible, vibrant, talented, opinionated group, and actually got more done with better, more thought-out discussion. Political Parties in a small community kill good ideas. Plain and simple.

And for input from yet another "mere citizen", let me say that I have absolutely no interest in political parties. Their net effect on the game would be negative, and could reduce our system to a shambles.

Hmm..... anyone who remembers my first thread on political parties will be rather confused.... I find myself having to join the ranks of anti-party debaters. Chalk up one more simple citizen who has had some say in things without being elected... true, nobody listens, but thats beside the point... when I argued for parties upon joining nearly a year ago, I was bombarded with reaons why they shouldn't exist, and having now seen the chaos caused on Apolyton by parties, I agree that they're a bad idea. They might serve only to take away the opinion of new citizens: Little Johhny joins and has no idea what is going on, so he goes into a thread for...say... the Orange Party, and the head of the party says "Johhny vote for (somebody) for president", and so Johhny does w/o knowing who or what hes voting for. Also, I'm sure we all see the threat posed by someone creating a *cough* historically based party.... maybe advocating a certain Industrial Age gov't.... or maybe somebody hoping to take power with the N-word (ain't gonna say it!) Anyway, I hope I've proved my point... if not than at least I've gotten off my daily rant nice and early... thank you all.

I will not particpate in this demogame, if there were political parties. It ruins the game, and could cause people to hate one another. I cannot express how much I am against this.

Just to remind everyone that all players start of small! Of the top of my head, I think Fionn is a reletively new player who quickly rose to acclaim through posting good ideas. I myself plunged head first into Governorship and managed not to screw it up too badly. The very first proposal I made as Gov was defeated 22-6 or something, with the 6 being me and 5 mayors I appointed! So son't be too disheartened if your first few ideas fall flat, it is the fresh inspiration we get from newer players that often drives some of the most fun aspects of the game!!

Ravensfire makes some great points:
I really don't like parties. It's going to end up as a popularity contests, and people will get their feelings hurt. Over politics?

Sorry - that's not right.

The naive assumption that "parties" will somehow increase the popularity of this game is mid-guided at best. The only people who would be attracted are the people I don't want to see in this game. People who want to argue everything, debate everything, demand a vote on everything. While politics will always be partially in this game, as multiple people try to use scarce resources, and as different solutions to the same problem are proposed, that's all I want to see.

This is supposed to be about playing Civ3, not party politics.

I will strongly campaign against either effort - I see no reason to codify such things. In some of the other forums I have read, parties have brought out the worst in people. Posts aren't from a poster, they are from a "party", and this seems to lead to far more polarized arguements. People stake out extreme positions for their party, and refuse to budge on the grounds of "the party".

We don't need that. It won't help. It will become the most divisive element ever to appear in a Demogame on CFC. The past 2 terms have been quite, no PI's and judicial reviews mostly over procedural issues. People are talking, negotiating back and forth and generally working well together. People are putting effort to help everyone succeed - and that is what this game is about. Not parties.

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

BTW... half of these quotes were made in a thread that I posted, I was attempting to bring political parties into the demogame. It was back when I was 15 years old... stupid.... immature, and everyone thought of me as more like they're kid. :lol:

ANd all that was about the Civ3 demogame. This is the Civ 4, and there is a different government, different people and a different style. I think people gave political parties a chance, and then lked them. No one has miss used them and they add a lot of fun to the game. Again, if you don't agree with political parties, don't join them, but don't ruin the majorities fun and tell us to disband and then either conform to your system or leave!!

The evident hipocracy in most of your arguements is quite... :eek:

i found some good arguements from when we were dicussing political parties pre-game. Soem of the are from the Same sources as yours

However ,as such thing's go ,from the moment it goes a little wrong the moderaters will intervene and i would more than agree with them.We can however experiment with it ,and it could prove to be fun to ,however we can only have one experiment ,when it fails party's will never be into the Demo game.So if we go into this route i would urge the veteran players to share their view on how such politics should be directed as to create a constructive and fun enviroment.

Let's get rid of this no-political party nonsense. We're all operating on a fear that's several years old, of conflict generated by parties way back with the Civ2 demogame was new. People will inevitably come into conflict, and as several successive games have shown, that will heat up no matter what happens. Political parties will only be a representation of conflict that exists already.

We all have opinions that line up pretty much along the same lines as they have before. Why not formalize those opinions in statements of party platforms? At least that way, elections will have some clearer conflicting issues, and new players can come in and see where some players stand based on party membership.

Because elections are always (and must remain, incidentally) private, block voting for candidates can't be enforced. People can and will feel free to differ from party's nominee. Does a party seem to dominate elections? It's not because of size, it's because those people are the best candidates, and because more people happen to agree with the stances that party takes. If you're in the minority, well, that's democracy for you. Besides, with parties or without, no matter how good a candidate he is, Joe Newbie who joined up a week ago will always lose to someone like Chieftess.

Allowing political parties will not cause the universe to end - indeed, given the ineffective nature of Citizen Groups, I actually doubt that a stable, active party organization can exist in these forums, and most will probably die out after a few terms. My point is that citizens should be given this freedom to organize poltically as they see fit, irregardless of old prejudices.


I'm also in favor of allowing political parties. The only reason they were banned throughout the Civ III demogames is because of something that happened in a Civ II demogame that didn't even (as far as I know) involve anyone who's been active in the Civ III demogames. It's time we try 'em.

It is an individual's choice to join a party in the first place. I don't think that anyone should be penalized for not joining a party, but by the same token people who join parties shouldn't be penalized either.


I REALLY REALLY REALLY and absolutely REALLY hated the political correctness of past demogames. There are always voting blocs, and banning them in order to satisfy an established veteran elite that already had covered all bases by mapping tendencies, allegiances and friendships, they got a leg up on newbees, that was already thrown into the fray by the established blocs in the shadows.

See, political parties are organizations that try to get there veiws and ideas into government. A citizens group is a organization that makes a part of civ demo game better in ther own ways. So i can see citizen groups as political parties and they should be like that. For example if there is a reiligious citizen group that is tring to get, lets say Hinduism as the civs state reliogon but there is another religious group that wants confucianism they would have to get one of there own as the religous advisor instead of the other one, just like a political party.

Gotta go watch the Super Bowl, but more coming!!

ANd all that was about the Civ3 demogame. This is the Civ 4, and there is a different government, different people and a different style. I think people gave political parties a chance, and then lked them. No one has miss used them and they add a lot of fun to the game. Again, if you don't agree with political parties, don't join them, but don't ruin the majorities fun and tell us to disband and then either conform to your system or leave!!

The evident hipocracy in most of your arguements is quite... :eek:

Oh my god... my respect for you has now gone to nothing. I have never told you to disband... I have never told you to conform to my system or leave. Your ignorance has gone to far.

You actually have the balls, to tell me that I'm ruining the game? How? I've done nothing to the game yet!

Fine, you wanted to <snip>... then your get <snip>. I'm done playing nice, I'm done trying to do this the non-aggressive way.

I still have respect for Ravensfire, although I doubt he knows this, because he has a good way of placing a mirror infront of you. Sure, I think he disagree's with me only because it's me... and not because of the actual idea, but atleast he shows me what I could be doing to help. Unluckily, most of the time I get to pissed off at the end of the discussion... that I simply just refuse to do it.

Your not doing this to help, anybody.... well.. except yourself.

-----------

It's about time we pull our heads out of our asses and take some god damn responsibility. Political parties are selfish, immature little creations that only bring those who wish to bicker and destroy. Your fun destroys the fun of others! You want proof of this, then read up inside of the thread! There is already proof of it! Your lies, your slander, it's disgusting! I have done nothing to you untill this point, I even publically gave you my respect. Now, you wish to slander me, for what? What are you afraid of?

Oh.. that's right. Your afraid to stand alone, or are you afraid that you just won't get elected on your personality alone?

My point has been proven, with the mere existance of this debate.

There are 11 threads on the first page of the citizens forum that concerns the game of Civ IV we are playing. Guess how many threads they're are per page? 45... yes... only 11 of 45 threads is actually about the game. You want to take a guess as to why that is?

The focus is no longer about the game, so why do we even have a Democracy Game?

Strider - Warned for a member-specific post, language and flaming. - Rik

The focus is no longer about the game, so why do we even have a Democracy Game?

For fun and if thats there way of having fun then let them have fun with there way, if you have fun in a different way there is no reason why the demogame cannot accomadate the two seperate ideas.

For fun and if thats there way of having fun then let them have fun with there way, if you have fun in a different way there is no reason why the demogame cannot accomadate the two seperate ideas.

Unless the political parties are distracting from the game, scaring away those that would be actually interested in the game, etc. so I can no longer have my fun.

Unless the political parties are distracting from the game, scaring away those that would be actually interested in the game, etc. so I can no longer have my fun.

Well you see to my eyes it seems like the majority of the people thus far prefer how things are working right now, so unless you can prove otherwise there seems no reason to change for the minority.

Well you see to my eyes it seems like the majority of the people thus far prefer how things are working right now, so unless you can prove otherwise there seems no reason to change for the minority.

Look up... the proof is already there.

Put it to the test then, Strider. Create a thread for the following Constitutional Amendment.

Renumber Article B.3 to Article B.4

New Clause:
Article B.3. The formation of Political Parties or Slate Voting is not allowed.

-- Ravensfire

Look up... the proof is already there.

well just how many people have joined your 'group', theres my proof.

Put it to the test then, Strider. Create a thread for the following Constitutional Amendment.

No need to ban political parties completely, just the corruption in them. Slate voting.

I'm up for it.

Okay, wait up. According to the constitution, you don't even need a discussion before you amend it? All it says is that it requries a majority of votes in a poll that is public and open for 4 days.

Continue on to sub-clause A, and remember that procedures are lower forms.

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

-- Ravensfire

Continue on to sub-clause A, and remember that procedures are lower forms.

Yeah... so that's basically telling me I've got to go somewhere else to find out where to amend the constitution, but it doesn't tell me where I need to go?

That's like putting a sign up that tells you the sign has sharp edges.

No need to ban political parties completely, just the corruption in them. Slate voting.

I'm up for it.

Well just how could you possibly ban slate voting??? there is simply no way.

Well just how could you possibly ban slate voting??? there is simply no way.

It's been banned before... say organized slate voting if it makes you feel fuzzier.

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

Still... where the hell is the law that tells you how to amend the constitution?

It's about time we pull our heads out of our asses and take some god damn responsibility. Political parties are selfish, immature little creations that only bring those who wish to bicker and destroy. Your fun destroys the fun of others! You want proof of this, then read up inside of the thread! There is already proof of it! Your lies, your slander, it's disgusting! I have done nothing to you untill this point, I even publically gave you my respect. Now, you wish to slander me, for what? What are you afraid of?

Oh.. that's right. Your afraid to stand alone, or are you afraid that you just won't get elected on your personality alone?

My point has been proven, with the mere existance of this debate.

There are 11 threads on the first page of the citizens forum that concerns the game of Civ IV we are playing. Guess how many threads they're are per page? 45... yes... only 11 of 45 threads is actually about the game. You want to take a guess as to why that is?

The focus is no longer about the game, so why do we even have a Democracy Game?

strider, I've been restrained in my postings for various reasons. given your comments, I feel the need to comment about the idiot's partee. It is so named not to make a statement, but to encourage like minded (noobs to demogames) people to have fun. That's why it is a partee and not a party.

I don't have an agenda. My votes have been for people I have history with. really don't care if people don't vote for whomp cause he's bald and half something.

No need to ban political parties completely, just the corruption in them. Slate voting.
Fill me in on the corruption. Telling people I'm voting for Tubs cause he's a geek and way smarter than me is not corruption.

You want proof of this, then read up inside of the thread! There is already proof of it! Your lies, your slander, it's disgusting! i'll agree with that, I may be guilty of it, but show me where and I'll stop.

To paraphrase you from somewhere else, I don't remember exactly where, this is a game. we've got, what about 60 members?

I don't have an agenda. My votes have been for people I have history with. really don't care if people don't vote for whomp cause he's bald and half something.

Exactly my point, your not giving anyone else a chance.

Fill me in on the corruption. Telling people I'm voting for Tubs cause he's a geek and way smarter than me is not corruption.

Since you want to bring up the idoits partee every single time... I'll show you the "corruption":

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

Hey, i looked at you post Tubby and realized that i had voted for evryone on it(except for b) I am being won over by the Call of the Idiocy. Can't resist much longer. You guys are like a magnet, and i;m like a guy with a metal plate in his head and wearing a suit of armor!

I've voted for all of the ones in the list. if there are any other's please let us know because we don't want to not vote because then we won't have the right to complain if it doesn't turn out our way.

Tubs, thank you for putting up all those links to the votes. I have a heck of a time finding my way around the Demo game sites.

I voted the straight party ticket. Idiots every one of you!!!

Have voted ... remember perhaps do not vote for blkbird in designated player as he is not idiot friendly ... we are either leading or equal in polls

Well I'm back from an unexpected absence (due to suffering from blkbird-FLU) and being cut off from the internet for a couple of days - seriously, I was sick but nothing to do with birds or women.
I've placed my votes in for all fellow idiots and it seems, as has been stated before, we seem (and will continue..) to have quite an influence over this Demo Game. Now that is dangerous!

There are similiar instances in the other major parties.

Edit: In an attempt to be equal and fair... I'll wander into the other major parties and find those other instances.

The other instances in various parties:

ATTENTION ALL IIP MEMBER: nice that got your attention. I urge all meber to get to the polls and vote. We should work to bring or party back to prominance, and restore the golden age. So be active and maybe vote for Gloriana or Me or Blkbird,( sorry if i missed someone)

In that case, I hope most of my fellow party members will rather support me, given that my work as the Minister of Science has been compliant to the manifest of our party.

This idiot will support a boycott of Blkbird. I'll forward this in the Idiot Partee as well. Blkbird is also running the next turn session offline or non-interactive online. That means that he can do pretty much what he wants without input. That's no way to be a DP in my opinion.

Also, as my first act as Humanitus Rector, the OP has decided in a 2 for - 0 against - 1 abstain vote to enforce a boycott on voting for Blkbird for political offices.

I'm running for censor, fellow party mates, and being a small party guy( not a meber of either of the current top two!) I need all the support i can get!!

Its good to see so many people are candidates for different government positions. I will vote for all of my fellow team members! I am sad to see that 5_star gave up his gubernotorial run, but I understand why. Good luck to all our candidates!

I would like to have our members do Big Brother a favor. I need you to PM the following message to as many people as possible. I ahve nothing to award this with, So do it as a favor. Big Brother is watching you.

The Party is forever. To ensure that The Party lasts forever it is requested that you vote for I am the Future as Public Defender, RoboPig for Cheif Justice, and Koonrad for Minister of Science. All three candidates offer new ideas to the demogame. They believe in a streatchable law, and a more flexible Goverment. Your vote is expected.

Big Brother is Watching You

I voted for all you guys and it was quite fun bumping up my postcount so much and so fast!

TO ALL OUR MEMBERS.

Those of you that have not allready done it please remove yourself from the IIP. Or be removed form the Party. No exceptions will be made.

Wow, a nice interesting discussion you have here, must say completely political and in a party thread! On actually about how parties are deleterious to the game. ;) :confused:

Now, to Strider:

I think you are confusing a few things all together. First, you have a strong bindings with the previous demogames. You were used to the way they were run and you just don't see any alternative to that. This might be fortunate because most of the other demogames were a relative success. At least, there were many of them and the forum was never completely deserted. On the other hand, that must be unfortunate because it does not mean that this game has to be run similar to the other previous games. Now, you just have to live with it imho and don't get mad about it. We'll see how it would go, would be a peculiar development.

Another and important aspect of power and voting: There is a discussion where not all opinions are equal. First, there are stronger and better players out there and they suggest more reasonable plans and provide more evidence-based explanations. Of course, everyone is free to speak and make suggestions. When the thing comes to voting on officials and plans, each vote is equal to the other votes. Let's say there is a strong player who is offensive in his nature and many people around are not satisfied with his communication manners and vote against any of proposals backed up by his opinion. Not because they don't like his opinion but because they don't like him personally. Same goes for a weak player but who is polite and constructive and on good terms with everyone. He suggests stupid moves but who cares, probably the game would be won anyhow, so majority votes for him and his plans and the game goes on. I'm not implying that previous versions of the game had been dominated by very weak strength-wise but communication-skilled players albeit to some extent this can be considered true by some people. I'm thinking that this kind of situation would be a rather unpleasant one. First priority of all citizens should be taking care of the gaming process and keeping it as funny as possible. That is actually one of the reasons for the generally low difficulty levels of the single-player demogame. And this is also understandable.

A rather observant user can tell approximate player strength of each citizen rather rapidly judging by participation in other parts of the forum and nature of their comments and suggestions. So, here comes the discrepancy which must be somehow resolved. IMHO, there is nothing tricky about it and another imho, political parties and citizen groups greatly help to resolve these discrepancies. There is a job to be done for everyone and the benefit to be made for everyone during the course of this game. I fail to understand how existence of parties might interfere with job and benefits of discussion. On the contrary, it seems that this struggle should stimulate the job to be done better.

Now, to the point of new citizens having trouble adjusting themselves with the game and being elected. That is a very peculiar point imho. It seems that actually most of the elected officials for this term are new to the demogame apart from few. Would they have been elected otherwise without political support? I seriously doubt that. I have already posted that and not hiding my opinion: I'm sick and tired of lurking all the previous demogames which were run by all the same people with occasional dilution from citizen pool just to make sure there is certain level of representation. You want it to continue this way? Sure, it might be more comfortable, knowing what is going to happen and how it would turn out.

Another thought about not enough discussion of actual gaming process and too much discussion of politics and stuff of life. It seems that with a new game and hopefully a new attitude towards the game, things had to be settled and things had to be settled right and not wrong. What you think you are trying to do is to preserve the spirit of previous games and keep the current game organized at to how you think you want it to be organized. So, by doing this you are actually participating in the political struggle instead. The only reason for any type of political struggle is gaining power either directly or through increasing influence.

These are my brief thoughts and hopefully they can be met with positive attitude and not a negative one.

Strider if your so sure that this is the turth, just say the word and i'll put up the amendment poll.

I do have the balls to challenge your veteran prejudices, and if that pisses you off than so be it. That was not ment as a pesonal attack, just as a point, but whichever way you take it, its not up to me. If you read the posts i quotes, you would see that such upstanding members such as TheDuckofFlanders urged people to give it a chance, to NOT let there veteran prejudices get in the way. The political parties are more like advanced citizien groups, i've said this before.

Also, for the example you posted. The ones involving the idiot partee, i voted for there members BASED ON THERE PLATFORMS. I realized that after doing it. I had been against them before that, but realized my views aligned well with there members and posted that. As for the others. I was doing something called CAMPAIGNING!!!!. I was getting my position out there to those who shared my ideologies. I still recpect you, because i don't throw away respect for people because they challenge me

Also, if you think the demogame is all about the game, your wrong. Its that simple. It is ment to have flavor, and be fun. To foster thinking, and comradery. Its really is that simple.

TO ALL INTERESTED: Early on there was heavy talk of a polictal sunst clause after Term 3. This would mean we would vote on whether or not to keep polical parties at that time. Is anyone interested in doing this, or should we push forward wiht the amendment?

well said akots and swiss.

strider, I'm really stupid. in small words, cause i'm an idiot, why are u so pissed off?

TO ALL INTERESTED: Early on there was heavy talk of a polictal sunst clause after Term 3. This would mean we would vote on whether or not to keep polical parties at that time. Is anyone interested in doing this, or should we push forward wiht the amendment?

See this post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3667476&postcount=117) for a way to do this.

Couple of notes on this.

First, there is no significant difference between a citizen's group and political parties as the mods permit here.

Second, slate voting is impossible to enforce (private voting).

Third, I think it's quite obvious what my preference is on this matter right now. The fact that I typed out two sentances should not be construed, by anyone, as support of this overblown hysteria some people have against our current parties.

-- Ravensfire

I dissagree with many of the comments made in favor of removing political parties. Factions are always present. So you either supress them or you legitamently recognize them. The system we have right now lets anyone nominate themselves, and everyone has complete freedom on each and every vote. There is NO BINDING TO PARTIES. The Power of all the parties in the civ4demogame is already little more then a rope of sand. People only vote for the party if they actually agree. The parties only have as much power as people that AGREE WITH THEM. Those people would agree with or without parties in existence. And they would probobly vote for the same people with or without parties. But Parties give them the ability to legitamately assemble. Citizen groups that call themselve parties but have no actual inherent power or rights, are still just citizen groups. I don't know what you expect to do about the majority of people choosing people they like. Thats sort of how a democracy works. Fundamentally, I don't think we will ever agree, and personally, reading all of the hot-headed harsh-toned posts bickering back and forth with each side firm in their beliefs after missing the thread for two days due to life, is really really emotionally straining. I feel like 4 or 5 days ago, this game felt relaxing and stimulating to look at. Now I feel like its more work then it should be for a game.

A note specifically for Strider.

I am sorry that so few people have come to help you to debate and I really do think its unfair. Actually, I think both sides of the fence are equal in wisdom, and I believe that there are good and wise people on both sides of this debate. More people agree with you then are posting, at least thats my personal belief based on weak intuition. I personally am slightly wounded by your responses to my post as I feel that you leave tones suggesting that the otherside of the argument is full of utter baseless and or false logic. I plan to stick with the idea of political parties because philosphically it aligns well with me. I could continue to debate but I do not have the energy or the will power at this point to carry on a back and forth discussion of this nature. I have enough philosophical and spiritual trials in my rl. I just came here to have fun and I'll still be here with or without parties. Please dont rip this post apart piece by piece also as it would frustrate me beyond belief and I would find myself compelled to defend myself and no one should feel like they are defending themselves from attacks.

A note to everyone

Relax. Seriously, tone it down a notch. Let's all just drink some Green Tea. And I hope people can have fun with or without parties, not just one way, because that limits the amount of people who can have their fun.

Couldn't agree more Nomad, its just i'm allergic to Green so the tea option is out! ;)

But seriously, we should not stray far from objectivity here, or else it becomes a charater debate and those solve nothing. I myself got worked up because, well my views are known.

Your allergic to Green? Well, I guess thats not so unreasonable. Considering I'm allergic to Censors. Hachoo.

I also am a diagnosed Turtle kicker so you better watch out

:joke: