There has been a motion by Donsig, seconded by me, that we start with a very minimum set of officials to start the 1st term, such as a President and a Judiciary, and maybe a Governor given we know we'll have at least one city.

Under this proposal, citizens would create offices and assign duties to them via initiative as the need is identified during the game. Then the office might be filled mid-term by an appointment or a special election.

I'll throw out one more idea for this concept if we want it to be elections but not take extra time. We could have multi-choice nominations and elections for "officer at large" to begin the 1st term, and fill newly created offices by assigning offices to those who get more than 50%, highest tally gets first created office.

The floor is now open. :D

Good idea! It’s an interesting idea to start with just the President. However, I’d prefer – as I outlined IN THIS POST (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4879110&postcount=7) a couple of weeks ago – to nominate candidates for several different offices rather than just starting with one office. Why? Because we already know we want and need more than one office, and starting with more officials will speed the development of our Code of Laws and will give more citizens proactive roles earlier in the game.

I suggest we start with President, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Minister of Military Affairs, and Minister of Legal Affairs (Chief Justice if you will). Those officials, with the advice and consent of the citizens, could develop the scope and duties of their respective offices. Both officials and citizens would work to identify and define additional offices that might be needed. For example, the President might push for a Designated Player pool; the Minister of Domestic Affairs might push for governors; and so on.

At any rate I third Donsig's motion.

Yes, it would also be a good idea to define offices but not define the duties.

In case the "don't need to hurry" argument comes up, that's not the reason for either of these ideas. The reason is to defer those decisions until after all the players have returned so they get a fair hearing and all the valuable citizen input can be given.

Firstly in addition to this system a Constitution should be in place. This constitution would define the basic rights of the people and should atleast contain the following three points (although this was never polled, I didn't see any argument against it.)
The Citizen's Assembly has the right to create a office and distribute powers as any time via a initiative poll.

The Citizen's Assembly has the right to impeach the President via recall poll with 51% of the non-abstain votes being yea.

Upon creation of a new position a two day nomination period followed by a two day election period will be held (and can be mid-term.) (Daveshack's idea.)


For anyone who hasn't followed the previous thread which Donsig suggested this in, I would like to point out the benefits of said system.

It would effectively allow us to control the number of offices relative to the number of participants.

It would really jack up a good first term election.

It wouldn't be a ruleset written by just 4-5 people before the game took place. So citizens wouldn't be able to say "Well if I wrote the ruleset I would of..."

It wouldn't create a lot of idle offices during the first term

Daveshack also made a few points to the flaws of the system. Which can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4924776&postcount=25)
Answers to such scenarios can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4924776&postcount=26)

No, Dont build as we go. Just go with a set amount of offices that we are planning to have in the beguinning.

No, Dont build as we go. Just go with a set amount of offices that we are planning to have in the beguinning.
Well a huge problem in DG1 was the amount of participants vs. the number of offices. I think this would help limit that problem. Also, it would get the game started a lot sooner (although I'm sure this is the least of our worries.)

Kinda wary of this myself. I personally like to see a minimum of legal discussion during the game itself as much as possible. I feel like it distracts alot from actually playing the game (I'm not really one of those people who enjoy the Legal side of things). And even given the legal arguments which usually arise I feel like it's gonna be multiplied if we're building everything as we go along.

However, I would assume there will be more participation in the discussions since the game would be underway.

If nothing else though I think we should start with the Basic Departments regardless (Military and Domestic).

That way we don't have to worry about the less busy departments like Culture but we've still already got people there besides the President to deal with some of the issues such as city placement, worker allocations, exploration and defense.

...but we've still already got people there besides the President to deal with some of the issues such as city placement, worker allocations, exploration and defense.

We already have people to do that - they're called citizens! If we're to play a true democracy game where the majority rules then we should minimize the middle man's role. By electing offcials we're playing a representation game not a democracy game. This system allows us all to be equals and therefore will allow those citizens who know their stuff (so to speak) to become natural leaders through the contributions they make via their posts. By not having a specific governor or military leader we can all feel free to contribute on an equal basis to discussions. I think many citizens tend to hold their tongue when an elected official speaks. Let's start out without all these elected gurus and see who emerges as leaders through our game play and strategy making discussions.

At the same time it's concentrating all of the "middlemans" into one single middle man, the president.

And I would say it still counts as a true democracy, as stated before.

Leaders - Executive Branch
Citizens - Legislative Branch

The "legislative Branch" in our case however is not elected and not represenatives. The Leaders are there to organize discussions, organize polls, and carry out the wishes of the people in the instructions thread.

Without leaders who posts instructions?

One could argue it's the President/DP's responcibility to follow threads and thus himself must make up his own instructions for everything based on citizen discussions and polls. But based on my own experience in previous demogames sessions in Civ III, it's alot for a DP to keep track of everything. Things get missed even with Leader posted instruction threads, let alone without.

Here was my idea awhile back which got no attention, but is very similar to what Falcon02 wants:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4860035&postcount=13

At the same time it's concentrating all of the "middlemans" into one single middle man, the president.

Without leaders who posts instructions?

OK, we don't really need a president anyway. All we need are DPs (and the judiciary).

As for posting instructiosn, well, if we're going to use continuous play (which is still undecided) we'd need a whole new way of posting instructions anyway. We have a couple options that I can think about:

1) If all valid instructions are based on polls then the instruction merely recites the poll and gives the results. Anyone can post such an instruction by copying and pasting and inserting a link to the closed poll.

2) We could also have a censor type official who is responsible for posting instructions based on finalized polls. We might want several censors in office at one time to ensure the workload isn't too heavy.

I am against removing and playing the Demogame without a president. We need to have presidents and leaders to keep the Demogame moving. Without it the Demogame will be stagnant.

Donsig's point that we don't need leaders to make decisions is correct, but it overlooks human nature. Areas with assigned leaders tend to get pushed forward, while areas with no leader end up stagnant. DG1 was a perfect example of this. It lacked someone to lead a strong focus on economics, and we ended up with an abysmal science rate due to excessive maintenance costs from growing the number of cities too fast.

We can struggle along without a leader for an area, and citizens are capable of making decisions. It will be a better game, with more energy and stronger participation, if the assignment of duties to leaders goes quickly.

I must also reiterate that it would be a serious mistake to poll everything. We need to set up a system where leaders can handle details while following the framework of big decisions set by the people.

I must also reiterate that it would be a serious mistake to poll everything. We need to set up a system where leaders can handle details while following the framework of big decisions set by the people.

I agree and I certainly did not mean to suggest we do that. I also agree with leaders handling details within the big picture the citizens decide upon - al long as citizens are allowed to delve into details if they want to.

We must not only take into account human nature of citizens but human nature of elected leaders as well. Leaders do not always meddle in details. We've had many complaints about officials not having power. Many office seekers don't want to just do the noble thing and process what the citizens want. Many want to make the big decisions themselves. I've had enough of that and it turns me off from the game.

At the start of the game we can poll all the major decisions. We have to decide where to settle, what to build there, what tech to research and what to do without military unit. All of four decisions. We have plenty of time to create elected offices as our country grows and the need for them actually arises.

I believe donsig is on to something here. The Demogame needs a good kick in the pants, so a major change in the fundemental operating rules wouldn't be such a bad idea. If you combine the majority of donsig's ideas (he's been pushing for them for a vey long time, so they are not out of the blue), they would gel into a playable game.

I like the idea of continually discussing new things as they are needed (Offices, duties...), and this major over-haul may be needed also.
;)

The concept is interesting - it is difficult to plan at the beginning of the game for things needed at the endgame. I think, however, that the plan puts too much faith in the democratic aspects of the game.

For one, we seem to have this terrible inability to affect major change in our governing structure. Many have complained about the Triumvirate approach, which we ended up adopting with the understanding that the rules would be rewritten soon after the Alphawolf scandal had calmed down. This never happened, despite the flaws in the system. Affecting major change would be necessary for the 'build as you go approach.' Otherwise, we will almost certainly end up with a jumble of initiatives defining a patchwork of conflicting offices without coherent organization, and legal infighting to no end.

I'm probably beating a dead horse, but I think that the old proposed flexible ruleset dealt with a similar idea, but with a more organized group of leaders - military, domestic, and foreign, President - around which other subordinate offices would be added, thus avoiding the chaos bound to be inherent in any sort of ad-hoc setup.

At this point, I think we need to make a decision about the general approach we're going to take.

We could probably poll this as 1) Build As You Go vs 2) Defined Roles. Optionally, through in the Flex concept (a mix of the two). We need to start making serious progress on the rules, and start doing that soon.

While this is only one of the several open decisions still to be made, it is arguable the most important. The faster we move towards answering it, the better off we're going to be. Maybe, a day of final discussion, poll up up Thursday and close it on Monday?

-- Ravensfire

Sounds like a good timetable to me, RF.

Hopefully, we can get a decent but brief proposal drawn up for all three concepts and a community-written poll can be done, as in one of the last important issues.

Alphawolf scandal had calmed down.
Can anyone explain what exactly happened in said scandal, since I entered the demogame in the middle of the second term. Not meaning to be nosy or anything, but it might help be understand potential flaws in our ruleset.

Can anyone explain what exactly happened in said scandal, since I entered the demogame in the middle of the second term. Not meaning to be nosy or anything, but it might help be understand potential flaws in our ruleset.
I will try to be as objective as possible:

Alphawolf was the person who originally proposed and pushed the Triumvirate government. The Triumvirate was one of three governments proposed, the other two being flexible (offices could be created and removed) and traditional (similar to previous games). There was a poll between these government types and Triumvirate won (I think it was a slim margin, but don't quote me).

As that Code of Laws set was being polished and the demogame was about to start, the moderators discovered that there were about dozen or accounts from the same IP address as alphawolf, and they all voted in the poll that decided we would use a triumvirate government. A poll was then posted by the moderators on whether to continue on or to stop and repoll the Code of Laws set. "Continue' won by a slim margin, mostly because people wanted to play right away. Then the first term judiciary was encapsulated by arguments on whether or not the Triumvirate government was legally ratified. And now everyone is mad at the people who play the legal angle of the game since that "detracted" from the civ4 game, and some argue was a reason people lost interest in this game.

Actually, there was more.

Aside from the manipulation of the ruleset, AW's duplicate accounts were not discovered until after the election. Several people were highly suspicious about various elections that did not follow the "normal" pattern of elections, and requested an investigation.

This revealed the multiple accounts (just over 10), and that 3 elections where manipulated by AW.

If you set the date on the Citizen's forum to "All", you should be able to quickly find a thread created by either Rik or Chieftess describing all of this.

-- Ravensfire

Here is the thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152528

And I was wrong, it was more than a slim margin that poll was won by.

At the level of which offices are defined, here is a nutshell description of the three main alternatives. The primary difference (as I see it) between "build as you go" and "flex" is the starting set of offices, while the amount of flexibility is what distinguishes them from traditional.

A true build as you go starts with maybe President, Governor, Judiciary, and expects to make massive changes over the 1st 2 or so terms as we decide on the fly how many officials to have and how to define their duties.
The flex idea tries to start out being complete so would probably also have Domestic and Military and might define the starting set of duties for each, but recognizing that change is inevitable it makes it easy to change offices and duties.
Both BAYG and FLEX have the concept of making the list of offices, and their duties, easy to change.
Traditional would try to define all offices along with all duties of each office in advance. The usual objective for traditional is to avoid turf wars by drawing strong barriors around the offices.After seeing the results of polls in Civ3DG6 and Civ4DG1, I'm firmly convinced that we should not even attempt to poll with 3 proposed organizational styles. I would like to propose that we poll "flexible" vs "predefined". Once that is decided, either there is work to define the offices and duties in the predefined case, or there is work to develop the framework for flexibility.

Here's a sample poll:

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?

Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
Flexible style, where the game starts with a loosely defined set of offices and duties which get modified as the game progresses.
Abstain

I don't like that poll DaveShack. In essence it means we start with a whole slew of officials, just like we always do. In other words, the idea of starting with a minimal amount of officials (as I proposed) is nixed before we even get to decide if we want to use it. To put this another way, your suggestion means we make our first decision in an unfair manner.

Why can't we adopt a constitution that does not define a lot of offices and then build the remaining offices (either before we start play or as we play) within the framework of that constitution? After ratifying the constitution (but before we start play) we could also decide how difficult we want it to be to modify offices during the game.

If we get a constitution in place we could actually try using some inititives (before we actually start play) and see if build as you go is worth doing after the game starts. If we try this and it works we can play all the sooner. If we try and it doesn't work then we'll have a clearer idea how we want our ruleset to be and we'll get to play sooner.

Slight revision:

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?
Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
Flexible style, where the game starts with 1 or more offices. The number of offices and their duties which get modified as the game progresses.
Abstain donsig, would this answer your concern?

I'm not comfortable with your approach, though, as it would nix the traditional concept, where the offices and duties are defined and require some effort to change.

This IS a decision point that needs to be polled.

-- Ravensfire

donsig, would this answer your concern?

Yes, this wording is much better since it doesn't imply we start with a full slate of defined offices.

Ravensfire, I understand your concerns about making it too easy to change things. I think in past games we've never really been able to divide up authority in a productive manner and we're still hammering out the relationship between officials and citizens. On top of that we're on [civ4] now which requires different duties than Civ III did. We need a game where we can expiriment with offices and to do that we have to allow easy changes. We could still specify a level of law between the constitution and citizen initiatives (the infamous Code of Laws). We could try starting with a blank code and pass a complete set during the game if we feel we need to stop making so many changes.

May I suggest we start polling things like this soon?
Februari first is nearing!

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?
Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
Flexible style, where the game starts with a loosely defined set of offices and duties which get modified as the game progresses.
Abstain

I don't like that poll DaveShack. In essence it means we start with a whole slew of officials, just like we always do. In other words, the idea of starting with a minimal amount of officials (as I proposed) is nixed before we even get to decide if we want to use it. To put this another way, your suggestion means we make our first decision in an unfair manner.


Slight revision:

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?
Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
Flexible style, where the game starts with 1 or more offices. The number of offices and their duties which get modified as the game progresses.
Abstain

I think you simply assumed too much (or too little) when you read my mock poll. Also Ravensfire's doesn't exactly hit donsig's point either. Here it is again bolded, with Ravensfire's addition in bold and an additional point in bold italic.

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?
Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
Flexible style, where the game starts with a loosely defined minimal set of one or more offices and duties which get modified as the game progresses.
Abstain

:)
This is what I was referring to in the public/private polling thread, DS. Ravensfire's wording is closer to what donsig wants than your wording. Who's going to define minimal? You? Me? donsig? Why would we want to add that word? :rolleyes:

Both options are going to require work to finish. Part of that second option is what will be the preset offices/duties. There shouldn't be "minimal" in there - it's introducing a limit that might not be preferred.

Keep the options generic here, fill in the details later.

-- Ravensfire

I think you simply assumed too much (or too little) when you read my mock poll. Also Ravensfire's doesn't exactly hit donsig's point either.

After making my post I realized I was reading something into your original suggestion DaveShack. I almost went back and edited my post but didn't because your wording does give the impression that we'd be defining a full slate of offices. Cyc, is right, Ravensfire's wording is closer to what I wanted.

Another revised version

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?
Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts. Changing the offices and/or duties would require an amendment.
Flexible style, where the game starts with 1 or more offices. The number of offices and their duties which get modified as the game progresses. Changing the offices and/or duties would require a poll.
AbstainI feel there are two major differences between the two options - where the offices/duties are defined, and what it takes to change them. I think both of these should be explained in the poll.

-- Ravensfire

I still don't see how the original wording implies anything about the number of offices -- "loosely defined" seems a whole lot less definite and therefore more subject to change than "one or more". :crazyeye: But if it makes y'all happy... :D

typo / usage error:

The number of offices and their duties which get could be modified ... [as originally written there is no verb in the sentence :p]

Also now you're missing my major point in the first half of that point, the "loosely defined" point.

... starts with 1 or more offices with loosely defined duties.

What if we want offices with well-defined duties that we can create/disband quickly?

That's a form of a flex government, it's it's not loosely defined.

This poll needs to be fairly general.

-- Ravensfire

Again I side here with RF. He's exactly right.

I can see DS's wanting the duties to be loosely defined, so that an official may fudge a bit until a newly desired and discussed position gets approved and filled. BUT, we can word that into the over all rules with fairly concise language, allowing a broad wave of the pen, let's say, or creating a poll for the citizens to decide an issue. I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the President or maybe the Domestic Advisor has to occasionally wear a different hat to clear a bottleneck, doesn't mean the job description for that position has to be vague or incomplete or open-ended...

I still don't see how the original wording implies anything about the number of offices -- "loosely defined" seems a whole lot less definite and therefore more subject to change than "one or more". :crazyeye: But if it makes y'all happy...
... starts with 1 or more offices with loosely defined duties.

I'm sure you don't see the implication that I see. Is that really surprising since we can't even agree on what official means? :lol:

Actually I don't like the concept of loosely defined offices. I guess I'd have to see an example of what you're talking about. I'm not suggesting we have loosely defined offices. I do now see there are clearly two two issues to be dealt with here. Not sure if we should poll them together or not.

A set of offices is one or more offices. That's what a set means. :rolleyes:

Moving right along... :D

Here is an example of duties which are not loosely defined.

IIB. The Powers and Duties of the Secretary of State
1. The Secretary of State shall have control of the Foreign policy of our nation with the exception in the Declaration of War/Peace/Alliance and the trade of cities.
A. The Secretary of State needs the permission of the Citizens Assembly: War/Peace/Alliance or the giving away of one of our Nation's cities.
B. The Secretary of State has the power to accept a city.
IIC. The Powers and Duties of the Secretary of War
1. The Secretary of War shall have control of all military land units with the exception of garrisons under the control of Governors and units assigned to settlers.
A. The Secretary of War may not attack a city or unit of a neutral or allied Civilization, without the permission of the Citizens Assembly.
2. The Secretary of War shall have control of all air units.
One example of loosely defined might be:


The Secretary of State is responsible for all foreign policy.
The Secretary of War is responsible for all military units and their movement.


See the difference? :p

A set of offices is one or more offices. That's what a set means. :rolleyes:

Technically, from a strictly mathematical point of view, a set of offices is ZERO or more offices. The null set is still a set. :p

Once again DaveShack you zoom in on one thing and miss part of it. Ravensfire's first revised version removes the implication I'm worried about because he specifies that the number of offices can be changed during the game. Your original wording implies we have to define the set from the git go. I realize your wording doesn't say that but on a quick read that implication is there. So, are you ok with Ravensfire's first revision or do we need a poll to define poll options? :joke: (I hope.)

I'm still wary of loosely defined offices but the examples you cite would work if we use initiatives as I envision them. We could have a miltary minister responsible for all military units and their movement and still pass an initiative requiring settlers to be escorted with responsibility for the escort's movement residing with the official responsible for the settler's movement.

DS - that's one example of a way to do it. There are countless more. You're wanting to hogtie any flexible government into your style IN THIS POLL.

No. That should not be decided here.

Fine. I don't give a darn anymore - do it any way you care, I won't be here to complain.

See you all in 2 months or so when you get done.

-- Ravensfire

What the heck was that about? I sure wish you would allow people to see your point and be influenced by it. Stopping after the 2nd paragraph would have been quite sufficient. This is becoming a disturbing pattern. :(

You have succeeded in showing me that the effect of the wording I was suggesting would be to poll the corners of a box instead of along one of the edges. My style is to debate an issue to try to get others to agree, and to give them a chance to get me to change. I'm more influenced by reasoning than I am by mere statements that something needs to be changed. Is there something wrong with that?

We seem to have a difference of opinion about the relative importance of:

How easy vs. hard it is to change
How much is strictly defined vs. how much is left to interpretation (loose)


I want to be able to choose the combination easy, loose.
You're concerned about not being able to choose the combination easy, strict? (guessing here)

Turn your worry about the poll question and answers around the other way. If we have a poll which is only about easy to change vs. hard to change, then the implication is that we'll do the other dimension of the question (strict vs loose) the way we always have before, with a strict definition.

It follows that we should have a poll with 4 options, or two independent polls.

It follows that we should have a poll with 4 options, or two independent polls.

A poll with 4 options (or 5 if we include other or abstain, six if we choose both) would be better than two independent polls. I'd rather we discuss these four possibilities a bit more before polling. I would also like to remind everyone that if we start out with easy then it should be easy to switch over to difficult if we decide we want to do that after the game starts.

We seem to have a difference of opinion about the relative importance of:

How easy vs. hard it is to change
How much is strictly defined vs. how much is left to interpretation (loose)


I want to be able to choose the combination easy, loose.

Why do we have to make this choice now and more importantly, why must we define all offices the same way? Can't we have some offices thsat are narrowly defined and others that are broadly defined? Can't we have offices that are difficult to change and some that are easy to change? Perhaps we want a president with a broad description (The president is our leader) and a governor with a narrow description (This governors is responsible for cities A, B and C and may only post instructions regarding tile usage within these cities). We prolly want the judiciary's role to be stable (difficult to change) while making expirimental offices easy to change.

Why lock ourselves into one way of doing things?

Haven't you guys gotten this democracy thing perfected yet?! :)

Looks like you are starting a new game...maybe I will try to catch up on where you are this weekend. Who knows, maybe I can try to play along this time....

Hey zorven. Good to see you again.

Thank you Cyc.

I have a question for those that support the build as you go approach. This approach is premised on starting with a reduced set of leaders at the beginning of the game and adding, as deemed necessary, additional leaders during the game. My question is how do you see that happening during the game? What leaders do you think will be implemented that would not be under a more traditional approach? Won't we just end up adding the usual leaders during the game instead of at the beginning?

If this is what happens, all we have accomplished by using the build as you go method is to keep the leaders position empty until it was deemed necessary to utilize said leaders. Could we not take the middle road and define the leaders that will be used during the game but keep them unfilled until such time as the Citizens decide the leader is needed?

My question is how do you see that happening during the game? What leaders do you think will be implemented that would not be under a more traditional approach? Won't we just end up adding the usual leaders during the game instead of at the beginning?

That's possible but this is only the second [civ4] demogame. The first withered on the vine since we were losing. We tried moving the Civ III DG offices to the [civ4] DG and it seems not to have worked. For instance I don't believe we had an office devoted to religion. :crazyeye: Also, the old set up never really worked anyway. Who was in charge of trading technologies? Was if the trade minister, the foreign minister or the science minister?

If we start with a blank slate we might end up with a religious leader, a tech trade guru, a resources minister and a wonder czar - absolutely NONE of which we need at the beginning. Maybe we'd start with a city site selection manager, an exploration leader and a techie. If we base our offices on the decisions we need to make in the game - as we need to make them - then maybe, just maybe, we won't get our arse handed to us again.

Also, I think this approach would minimize the number of available offices producing some real competition for them.

If we base our offices on the decisions we need to make in the game - as we need to make them - then maybe, just maybe, we won't get our arse handed to us again.

Don't we all have enough experience with the game to know what kinds of decisions need to be made? My fear is that without defining what leaders will be in the game (even if we don't fill the positions early on) that we will end up never creating new positions - you know that once a game gets started very little ever happens with modifying the ruleset in place at the beginning of the game. With that said, I am not against trying it.

We changed positions during the game in DG6, DG7, and Civ4DG1. The key difference with this proposal is that offices can be changed without changing "the law", in this case the Constitution.

A lot of legal wrangling happens at the fringes between offices. We can divert a lot of that energy from the courts to the citizens by limiting the definition of office duties in the formal law which is subject to review, and putting it in citizen initiative based decisions which can be overridden by a simple majority poll.

Not really DaveShack. Initiatives will still have the force of law. All we're doing is making clearer the distinction between the constitution and lower forms of law. While initiatives can be overridden by later initiatives we will still be bound by the wording of initiatives and we will still have the option of having the judiciary interpret initiatives. The legal wrangling could be even worse depending on how badly initiatives are written. But as I've tried to say many times, it is not the rules that cause the legal wrangling it is trying to make decisions in an unfair manner that causes problems. The private poll issue last game is a good case in point. All we had to do was poll the issue. Then we'd have had a clear indication of what the majority wanted. I put up a poll but it was shot done because it was private - which was legal under our rules. Yet those who shot it down didn't post a version of the poll they claimed to be legal. I never got a decision from the judiciary on the matter and so it was left in the air. Then when I was on the judiciary and left something hang I took heck for it. Where is the fair play? Where is the decision making by the majority? We had rules to cover all this yet it was a sad situation. Rule making is not going to make these bad situations go away. If we are not fair then we will have legal wrangling even under this system.

Not really DaveShack. Initiatives will still have the force of law. All we're doing is making clearer the distinction between the constitution and lower forms of law. While initiatives can be overridden by later initiatives we will still be bound by the wording of initiatives and we will still have the option of having the judiciary interpret initiatives.

I think it will be a mindset thing. When the amendment process takes a long time and has a high vote requirement, legal action is the only recourse that some people want to take. If we start with the expectation that the way to solve a disagreement about official duties, or the rules in general, is with a poll, then that's the method people will use.

Cant we force the President to hold a poll atleast once a term asking about the distribution of powers and offices, via Constitution. That way even if the citizens have no real leader, and aren't as proactive as they should be, a poll will voice the opinions of all citizens, helping others realize that they aren't the only one's who think there needs to be a change (whether it be an addition, removal or redistribution.)

Also just wanting to point out again that this system let's us control the number of offices based on the number of active citizens. Defining offices but not having them filled just tempts us to fill the office the second a decision that may pertain to it comes up, although in reality, that decision could just be made by someone else. Such as defining an office on building wonders. Sure we leave it unfilled, but when a serious proposal to build a wonder comes up, many people will say by law, that the office should be filled then, however such an uncommon decision could easily be made by someone else.

I think it will be a mindset thing. When the amendment process takes a long time and has a high vote requirement, legal action is the only recourse that some people want to take. If we start with the expectation that the way to solve a disagreement about official duties, or the rules in general, is with a poll, then that's the method people will use.

You've got a good point DaveShack but once again you miss the main point. Unless we all agree on how polls should be posted then we still have the same problems and will have the same results. I guess my example of the disagreement over private versus public polls last game didn't quite hit home, did it?

Unless we all agree on how polls should be posted then we still have the same problems and will have the same results.

I don't think we all have to agree on anything. Just a majority. :)

I don't think we all have to agree on anything. Just a majority. :)

True, but once again you fail to address the whole point. The example I brought up shows we need more than a majority to agree on how we determine what the majority agrees on.

On the private versus public poll issue I would have gladly accepted the results of a poll. If someone had posted a public poll on the question I would have even voted in it. No one saw fit to post such a poll so I posted one and made it private because that's how I felt it should be done. Instead of everyone just voting on the issue so we could get a decision and move on, the poll itself was derided and compromised. If the majority is to rule we have to be consistent in how we measure the answers to questions we put to citizens so we will all know when the majority has spoken. If we are to have an enjoyable game without risking losing many participants then we must also be fair in how we determine what the majority wants.

I personally have no problems with a 2/3 majority...

on Amendments and Ratifications of course...

True, but once again you fail to address the whole point. The example I brought up shows we need more than a majority to agree on how we determine what the majority agrees on.


Actually it shows that the minority needs to stop once something is decided. :rolleyes:

Why would someone who believes the status quo is correct want to change it? It's not the majority's job to revalidate over and over -- someone who disagrees has to be the driver of change. That change must occur within the existing rules.

Actually it shows that the minority needs to stop once something is decided. :rolleyes:

How many times will you skirt the real issue DaveShack? The point (that you continue to simply ignore) is that a decision was not made!

Why would someone who believes the status quo is correct want to change it?

Again, you overlook the obvious. There was (apparently) no agreement on the status quo since we were working from different perspectives. I was not part of the pregame rule making process for the last game so I had no memory of the discussions leading up to the rules that were adopted (and no time to research those discussions). I was also inactive since DGIII. All I had to go on was my recollections of the early DGs and the current rules themselves which clearly did not prohibit the use of private polls. From my perspective private polls were certainly allowed. You and some others had a different perspective. Since my view was that the status quo allowed private polls why (as you so eloquently put it) would I want to change it?

It's not the majority's job to revalidate over and over -- someone who disagrees has to be the driver of change. That change must occur within the existing rules.

Umm, once again you ignore crucial aspects of the situation. I did try driving the change. I posted a poll and the poll itself was (incorrectly) invalidated. I sought redress through our judicial system and the case was never completed. All I could do was hammer away at the Censor which finally succeeded when you yourself grudgingly admitted that making a poll private was not in and of itself reason to invalidate the poll. By then the game was shot anyway.

If we are going to try the build as you go approach then we have to respect all polls no matter how poorly written. We have to adhere to the bad polls as well as the good ones. People won't like that but ignoring or undermining bad polls also undermines the good ones. Under any system there will be loopholes that can be exploited by discontented people. The answer is not to try writing rules with no loopholes. Nor is the answer to accept gridlock when one person disagrees with something. The answer is to have a clearly defined, objective and fair mechanism in place for making decisions.

Umm, once again you ignore crucial aspects of the situation. I did try driving the change. I posted a poll and the poll itself was (incorrectly) invalidated. I sought redress through our judicial system and the case was never completed. All I could do was hammer away at the Censor which finally succeeded when you yourself grudgingly admitted that making a poll private was not in and of itself reason to invalidate the poll. By then the game was shot anyway.

Once again you overlook, or deliberately talk around, the obvious. You were told exactly what behaviour you could change which would give the result you wanted -- post your poll as public. If you had just obeyed the rules as accepted by the majority of the time that issue might have been resolved within days of the first time you raised it. Instead you chose the hard way.


If we are going to try the build as you go approach then we have to respect all polls no matter how poorly written. We have to adhere to the bad polls as well as the good ones. People won't like that but ignoring or undermining bad polls also undermines the good ones. Under any system there will be loopholes that can be exploited by discontented people. The answer is not to try writing rules with no loopholes. Nor is the answer to accept gridlock when one person disagrees with something. The answer is to have a clearly defined, objective and fair mechanism in place for making decisions.


Remember that badly written polls can be and often are unfair. Leaving off the alternative option is the simplest one to explain:

Invade France?
Immediately
Later
Abstain

We clearly cannot allow the result of such a poll to stand, especially if most people have been saying NO in the discussion. There MUST be some limits, or the door is left wide open for the subset of people who are capable of turning it into a one-man show via poll manipulation. If our only recourse is another poll to overrule the unfair one, we'll get two groups polling the same issue back and forth until next year.

Do I know how to limit it and make it a fair and objective limit? No, not really. The polling standards were intended to keep this from happening.

Once again you overlook, or deliberately talk around, the obvious. You were told exactly what behaviour you could change which would give the result you wanted -- post your poll as public. If you had just obeyed the rules as accepted by the majority of the time that issue might have been resolved within days of the first time you raised it. Instead you chose the hard way.

I'm talking around the obvious? Try reading what you post DaveShack! :lol: Let me get this straight. YOU interpret the majority's decision to prohibit private polls and I interpret the majority's decision to allow private polls. So in order to clarify which interpretation is correct I have to accept your interpretation first? Is that what you're saying?

Remember that badly written polls can be and often are unfair. Leaving off the alternative option is the simplest one to explain... We clearly cannot allow the result of such a poll to stand, especially if most people have been saying NO in the discussion. There MUST be some limits, or the door is left wide open for the subset of people who are capable of turning it into a one-man show via poll manipulation.

I agree DaveShack. Now if I can get you to focus on the main point. :) Of course we need limits. I'm trying to say we have to be very careful how we set those limits. We need limits that are fair, objective and clearly defined. My advice is to build these limits as we go adding to them a little at a time. Until we get limits in place we will have to accept any poll, no matter how bad. The good part is we can ratify the constitution and begin working on the limits right away. BTW, an easy fix is to require an abstain option and a true majority for any option to win.

I'm talking around the obvious? Try reading what you post DaveShack! :lol: Let me get this straight. YOU interpret the majority's decision to prohibit private polls and I interpret the majority's decision to allow private polls. So in order to clarify which interpretation is correct I have to accept your interpretation first? Is that what you're saying?


Not just me -- 3 (or was it 4) censors, several justices, and every citizen posting on the matter believed the same thing. At the time of that first poll, I don't think there was anyone else who disagreed that the intent was to limit binding polls to public only.

OK, there might have been some, but even if there were, it was clearly not a majority.

Edit: there was a bit of disagreement on what should be done about private polls, whose responsibility it was, etc. But I don't recall any significant discussion of the specific subject of private vs public, at that time.

I changed my legal position only after the majority opinion changed.

I changed my legal position only after the majority opinion changed.

:lol: Just when did the majority opinion change? We never had a poll so did you count posts? Or do you have some sort of crystal ball I don't know about? (If you do was it manufactured by WotP, Inc.?)

If the majority is to rule then we need clear, fair and objective ways of determining just what the majority opinion is. Did the method you used to determine the majority opinion (either at the time of my private poll or later when you changed your legal position) live up to these three criteria?

Slight correction -- to be accurate the change in public opinion IMO was via a strong plurality (not majority) in this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182359).

Perfect poll for our discussion DaveShack. :goodjob:

Under the system and constitution I'm proposing that poll would not have been an opinion poll but an initiative. In my system all polls are initiatves. I really hate so called opinion polls because they cloud the process of determining what the majority actually wants. If we stay focused on clearly defined, objective and fair criteria for forum polls then we will all be able to agree on what the majority wants. And if we elevate forum polls to a sort of sacred status by insisting that all completed forum polls (subject to whatever limitations are agreed upon via completed forum polls) that will help us all to produce better polls.

Now we do not have to poll everything nor do we have to give up trying to find out opinions. I suggest we conduct opinion surveys via a discussion thread rather than a poll. If we want the people's opinion on war with the Mongols we can open a discussion thread with a poll like question (Should we go to war with the Mongols? y/n/a) and ask people to post their answers as well as their thoughts on the subject. We can then keep a running count posted in the thread's first post. I think this would also generate discussion on that particular topic. Sure, people could go back and edit their opinions but we should understand that opinions are fluid anyway. The discussion is to be used to make a future decision, it is not a decision in and of itself. Also, for those who like public polls this method of gathering opinions is very public.

That poll is also a good example to look at for the majority / plurality question. If we continue to look at that poll as an initiative then what is the status of the majority decision? We have something objective - a poll result. Without going into whether or not the poll was fair (another of my three criteria) we could still argue over what the majority decision was. Allowing private polls got the most votes but did not get a strict majority. Without a previous determination of what constitutes a majority decision we leave the door open for arguments.

My suggestion is that we have to have a standard majority (more than half of those voting in the poll) for any option to be considered a majority decision. In the poll DaveShack brought to our attention there would be no decision from that poll and the status of private polls would remain as it was before the poll (whatever that was).

That's easy to say when "no decision" is equivalent to your preferred outcome. I guess it's critical to phrase the question carefully. :lol:

Any time there are more than two options, a plurality is possible. This is technically true of any vote with an abstain option, unless we discard the abstains. What about a result of:?
Yes - 9 (45%)
No - 1 (5%)
Abstain - 10 (50%)

If we restrict binding polls to those with a true majority counting abstain, an official could implement the "no" option with impunity, even though 9 times as many people want the "yes" option. This is not a likely poll result, nor is it likely an official would do that, but what should we do if it does happen? Some decisions make or break the entire game.

On a side note, in RL the "abstain" option is the same as not voting, when the votes are counted. In a 5 member commission, if the vote is 2-1 with 2 abstains it is counted as a majority and the motion carries. In an election, 50% or more of the registered voters might refrain from voting on a ballot issue, but the issue is decided on the votes which are cast.

Politicians use abstain to get it on record they were present for the vote, because if they don't then their opponent for the next term will use their absences as a campaign issue.

Maybe you guys dont realize, but this is what turned a lot of people off from the demogame. The last bunch of posts have been you two wrangling over what seems like technicalities (not saying thats pointless though.)

Maybe you guys dont realize, but this is what turned a lot of people off from the demogame. The last bunch of posts have been you two wrangling over what seems like technicalities (not saying thats pointless though.)

That's why we're getting it out of our system now, before everyone shows up. :p

OK, time to bump this since nobody else has yet.

The proposal in this thread is to start with very few rules, and build as we go. A minimum game might start with a President and a Judiciary.

Not very democratic, you ask? Well, really it could be quite democratic. Depends on what the citizens do. In the draft constitution, the highest form of decision making is the citizen-initiated poll. Don't like what the officials are doing? Use a poll to change it! Wanna add a new office like Domestic Advisor? A poll can do that too.

We got to the point that we can't continue planning the game without your input, so what say you citizens?

I say let donsig post his mock polls here so we can discuss any changes that may be needed. Mock polls will be required for any Amendments to this Constitutional process, no?

EDIT: Or maybe it should go in the Proposed Constitution for DG2 thread instead? :blush:

Someone, I think it was donsig, posted this link to a proposal by black_hole, on the first page: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4860035&postcount=13

I must say it stands as an incredibly good idea in my opinion because:
1. I am not in favour of having a sole office to decide everything, even to start with...
2. I am not, either, in favour of spending ages defining a multitude of offices down to the level of 'High Admiral,' 'Minister of Transportation'....
3. But, for all anyone knows, such offices may eventually become neccessary , and so this proposal created a middle road


Hope I'm not too late posting here?

I suggest we start with the bare minimum positions

1. President (overall head)
2. Domestic Official (to handle the positioning of capital)
3. Military Official (to take of the troops)

IMO, the other positions can be established as the game proceeds. For example, when an opponent is met, elections can be held for a Foreign Official.

Btw, is it official or something else?

Edit: Do we call the person official or what?

I suggest we start with the bare minimum positions

1. President (overall head)
2. Domestic Official (to handle the positioning of capital)
3. Military Official (to take of the troops)

IMO, the other positions can be established as the game proceeds. For example, when an opponent is met, elections can be held for a Foreign Official.

Btw, is it official or something else?

Edit: Do we call the person official or what?

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

Do we call the person official or what?

We've had:
XXX Advisor
XXX Leader
XXX Consul (or Consul of XXX)
Secretary of XXX
Minister of XXX

I'd say just pick a title structure, doesn't much matter as long as it's consistent. :)

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

Exactly the point, thanks for stating it so well. :goodjob:

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

I totally agree with dutchfire on that!

Although what ordinaryguy said isn't stupid either:

when an opponent is met, elections can be held for a Foreign Official.


Also, i guess our government should reflect our civics... If we are in a police state, (if the citizen votes for it), then the military advisor/minister/consul/offical should be the one leading our country...no?


Anyway, I gotta say you guys know your thing! :D

And i know this does not need to be talk about for the time being but, will we have a religious consul or something like that?

My reservations about "Build as you go" especially with "No Leaders" to start out with, except maybe a President is that in my experiance, getting serious discussion on major government/law changes can be hard. Once the game's started most people just want to play, not rewrite laws.

Thus lack of participation means nothing get's done. This seems to have occur last DG with the unrest over the voter fraud for the approval of it's government system, however despite the unrest it was never changed.

One reason I'm in favor of at least having the "Big Three" (Pres, Military, Domestic) is these offices are important, and I fear if we don't start with 'em we may never get 'em.

Also, at what point do we add military? 2 military units? first foreign contact? 3 military units?

What about domestic? 2 cities? 3 cities?

I know the idea is to get the opinion of people as things goes and when the public feels it's right that's when we add 'em, but messing with government structure, particularly midterm can be very distracting from the main game... or the main game can get very distracting from the important business of creating and defining this new office. What happens when we can't decide midterm exactly what we want the new office to do? The game must go on, but we go on without the benefits of a more organized Government structure.

Also, the Military Leader/Advisor in particular has more reponsibility in the early turns then (oh let's move this warrior around). They work out (with domestic and governors) military production to ensure we don't find ourselves short on military units, while at the same time making sure they don't demand too much so that our economy can also grow.

Simularly with Domestic.

Granted there's less to do at the start of the game then later, but there is more of a job there then it feels like some people are giving it credit for. Could the President/DP solo this part (with citizen input of course)? Probobly, but early on is when such planning is most important.

Also another thing... how are Leaders/advisors going to feel when you start giving responcibilities they once had to other people?


As I have said before, I'm not saying it won't work, and it is an interesting idea... but I have some major reservations.

Hi all,

First time posting in this forum, but i'm very inerested in participating in the DemoGame. I'm generally planning on participating as a citizen...and since several post have asked for citizen input I thought I'd give my 2 cents.

I'd like to see the game get started with a minimum number of officials, as others have proposed, so that the game can, in fact, get started. If we try to define every role down to dog catcher before starting, the discussions could become so prolonged that it could turn some people off from participating. Of course if we dont have some structure, I think the whole thing will quickly turn into chaos.

I think we should have to start:
President
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of War
Secretary of State
Suprime Court (could be a single Chief Justice, or a fixed number of Justices)

(BTW I'm not necessarily endorsing these traditional U.S. titles. I think everyone probably understands what the roles are implied by these titles).

The SecState won't be very busy in the early game, but we'll need someone to fill this role sooner or later, why not just start with it? Who knows when we'll encounter other civs, and who wants to stop everything and have an election then?

Which leads to my next point: we don't have to wait for a crisis to to start defining other offices. We can work on those as the game goes on, even if they're never needed. For example, we might define the responsibilities of a Secretary of Religon/High Priest, but only fill the office if some condition is triggered (choosing a state religon, enacting Theocracy civic, etc.) Same for Secretary of Culture, Secretary of the Treasury, Govenors, Mayors, Sub-military leaders, whatever.

Anyways, just what I was thinking :)

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

ok i see your point :goodjob: I wasn't specific enough then.........

Maybe we could appoint a Military Ministry when we met another civ or encounter barbs. That's when we need to consider our defences especially if there are raging barbs or an agressive civ

Maybe you guys dont realize, but this is what turned a lot of people off from the demogame. The last bunch of posts have been you two wrangling over what seems like technicalities (not saying thats pointless though.)

don't worry ice2k4,:cool: some of us are hardcore addicted players, personally i enjoy reading dialogues since these things will eventually be talked about... i prefer seeing the errors we could do than do them on the way and scrap a cool game.