I'd like to suggest that we hold Judiciary elections starting with nominations opening right away. We can specify the term is from the end of the election until the end of February, which under at least one of the proposed Constitutions would be perfectly valid. Then we'd have people in place to handle any questions which come up.

Any comments or concerns?

The first thing we do when starting a demo-game is the judiciary?

Well, I suppose it can be handy, and I suggest that some old time legal wranglers like Dave and donsig get the positions.

The first thing we do when starting a demo-game is the judiciary?

Usually we wait until the whole ruleset is ready before doing anything. Sometimes not having a judiciary during that time has gotton us into trouble. Not that I especially want a lot of legal discussion. :mischief:

Well, I suppose it can be handy, and I suggest that some old time legal wranglers like Dave and donsig get the positions.
I'd probably try to entice one of the many other past justices to return to the courtroom.

I'd probably try to entice one of the many other past justices to return to the courtroom.
Let me guess, youre going to poke lurker posters who were part of the Judicary system in demogames past? :mischief:

Let me guess, youre going to poke lurker posters who were part of the Judicary system in demogames past? :mischief:

You don't understand. donsig IS the judiciary! ;)
That way, he can preside over his own PI (old Civ3 demogame term for CC for the newer ones out there - inside joke). :D

You don't understand. donsig IS the judiciary! ;)
Care to point out his exact quote? Since I dont recall him saying "I AM the Judicary" (In nod to King Louis XIV quote "I AM the state") ;)

starting with nominations opening right away
How many people will the judiciary need? 3?

I nominate: Chieftess, Cyc, DaveShack, donsig and Rik Meleet

I decline the nomination. I couldn't even understand Legalese for Dummies if I tried.

Care to point out his exact quote? Since I dont recall him saying "I AM the Judicary" (In nod to King Louis XIV quote "I AM the state") ;)

It was a joke, CG.

Donsig is nobody

I don't like the idea of having a judiciary until we agree on what type of ruleset we want. Unless of course we first define the judiciary before we elect them.

If we did the early election, it would probably be provisional with the assumption that the corresponding Constitution is ratified.

It was a joke, CG.
I know that, and I was trying to make a joke out of a joke. Apparently a bad one at that :sad:.

I did not join the first demogame. While I did lurk the forum from time to time, I chose not to join the game because of all the legal wrangling taking place.

I was considering joining this second incarnation. But, I find this thread proposing that the first thing that needs to be done is to elect a judiciary. Truth be told, it makes me a bit nervous.

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of a "Democracy Game". If it is a community effort to play a game of civ, then great! But, if the idea is to simulate a "civ-style" form of government, well ... Nothing wrong with that, its just that a government simulation really isn't my cup of tea.

I did not join the first demogame. While I did lurk the forum from time to time, I chose not to join the game because of all the legal wrangling taking place.

I was considering joining this second incarnation. But, I find this thread proposing that the first thing that needs to be done is to elect a judiciary. Truth be told, it makes me a bit nervous.

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of a "Democracy Game". If it is a community effort to play a game of civ, then great! But, if the idea is to simulate a "civ-style" form of government, well ... Nothing wrong with that, its just that a government simulation really isn't my cup of tea.

I agree with you here...in any case, it seems the majority are trying to simulate a government, and not just make this a SG-type game with elected officials. Legal wrangling isn't my favorite pastime either.

Unfortunately, we do have some people who just love a Government Sim based upon the game. Strangely, adding more rules and bureaucracy only just turn off more citizens. We should have gone with the rule "Keep it simple silly".

I did not join the first demogame. While I did lurk the forum from time to time, I chose not to join the game because of all the legal wrangling taking place.

I don't blame ya, podna. I been to Texas, an Court translated to Texan is "a rope an a tree..." :lol: J/K
Yes, we call it the Democracy game because we like to set up a Democracy, Constitution and all.

We should have gone with the rule "Keep it simple silly".
The reason for the Courts is to keep it simple, silly. ;)
If we didn't have the Courts in this game, people who disregard the rules would run helter-skelter nonstop, driving the game into chaos. Now that would be a complicated game. Unfortunately, there are some people that like to abuse the Court system.

No, the point is not to make the legal side dominate. It's just the only thing which is close to ready. ;)

Have a look at the other threads and you'll see that most of us who have been working on the pregame advocate starting with few or no rules and building as we go. :D

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of a "Democracy Game". If it is a community effort to play a game of civ, then great! But, if the idea is to simulate a "civ-style" form of government, well ... Nothing wrong with that, its just that a government simulation really isn't my cup of tea.

The point of the democracy game is for us (the CivFanatics community) to play a game of [civ4]. In a perfect world we'd discuss the game and make gameplay decisions (as a group) in the forums. In reality this usually works fine until we end up split into two camps over some decision. The point of the legal wrangling is to ensure that we arrive at decisions in a fair manner.

While the legal stuff turns alot of people off many are turned off by not having an equal voice in the [civ4] decision making process. The latter really sours a democracy game for me as it did in our last attempt..

While the legal stuff turns alot of people off many are turned off by not having an equal voice in the [civ4] decision making process. The latter really sours a democracy game for me as it did in our last attempt..

I think a lot more people are turned off by having too many/too wordy rules, than by having not enough/not properly written rules.

I can think of people being turned of by legal wrangling, but it's harder to think of people (at least publicly) complaining about not having a fair voice. People always can have a fair voice...no one limits your ability to post, all you have to do is click the "Post Reply" button! Whether or not people agree/listen to you, well, that's different.

While the legal stuff turns alot of people off many are turned off by not having an equal voice in the [civ4] decision making process. The latter really sours a democracy game for me as it did in our last attempt..

I'm turned off by the "Legal stuff" always have been always will. Not because "Not an equal voice," but because it tends to distract too much from the main game if it runs rampant.

In Civ III DG1 I was able to stay active and interested by basically disregarding all "legal arguments." I knew the rules and followed them to the best of my abilities.

I was not really aware of the intensity of the infamous PI#6 from Civ III DG1 until I saw other people talking about it elsewhere. I really focused on the game, how people wanted things to be done, and making thread inquiries and polls when I wasn't sure what the people wanted.

I ignored the Judiciary thread for the most part, because I just wanted to play a game. Frivolous lawsuits and "bickering" about legal wording after the fact bothered me, so I ignored 'em and focused on the main part of the game.

That's not to say I want to abolish Judiciary or anything... but lawsuits and legal discussions I feel should be kept at a minimum.

While the legal stuff turns alot of people off many are turned off by not having an equal voice in the [civ4] decision making process. The latter really sours a democracy game for me as it did in our last attempt..

That is understandable but it would be helpful if many of us (in particular the two of us but there are others :) ) would use a less confrontational style when raising issues with the decision making process.

I think a lot more people are turned off by having too many/too wordy rules, than by having not enough/not properly written rules.

I agree. Ever since Civ III DG2 I've been advocating less rules. For the upcoming game I've proposed we use a constitution only to start and build rules as we go. I the majority really don't want a lot of rules then there won't be if my proposal is adopted.

I can think of people being turned of by legal wrangling, but it's harder to think of people (at least publicly) complaining about not having a fair voice. People always can have a fair voice...no one limits your ability to post, all you have to do is click the "Post Reply" button! Whether or not people agree/listen to you, well, that's different.

You're right, you won't hear them complain because they just go away.

You are also absolutely right about that reply button. But that doesn't work in the chats, does it?

I'm used to people not agreeing with me and within the context of the democracy game I can certainly abide by the wishes of the majority when they are objectively displayed in the results of a poll forum. I've fought long and hard over the course of several democracy games to keep alive my right (as a non-office holding player) to post a binding poll. Unless I'm allowed to do that then I don't consider myself as having a fair voice. IIRC, I was denied that opportunity last game.

Do we really need a judiciary to be elected early, before we even have rules to argue about? To me, at least, early judicial elections would be a good way to start off on a bad foot, signaling to ourselves and potential citizens that we value the rules of the game more than we value the Civ game itself (you know, seeing as CFC is a Civilization fansite and all).

I'm not arguing about the necessity of the judiciary - yes, someone needs to fairly enforce the rules - but surely our esteemed moderators are trustworthy enough to keep things in check before the game begins, at which point our new constitution (whatever form it should take) will take effect.

Personally, I was kind of suprsed when I saw this thread. I figured DS was just trying to cause more controversy (or maybe another arguement with donsig...). I don't see a problem with having a Judicial Branch setup early to guide us through these difficult times, it would be new and different. But if the majority of players don't want an early Court, I don't see a problem in not having one either. Both ways are fine.

I still see the same ole crap. Some people resent the Courts, some people see that we need the Courts. To the first group, it doesn't really matter what the Courts can do to help the flow of the game or that there is a good sized group that actually enjoys participating in the legal aspects of our cyberworld. The other group just butt heads with them, bringing up things from the past, in an attempt to show them the Courts are needed.

It's not the Courts that are the problem here. It's the two camps who oppose each other on the principle of the thing. This is so useless. The Courts have been in the Demogame prety much since it's creation. The kicker is the Demogame imitates real life - the farther it evolves, the less the growing group wants to adhere to the governing rules. Social decay. Three cheers!

I still see the same ole crap. ...........Social decay. Three cheers!

Seconded. It's good to have you back, Cyc.

lol @ donovans signiture

I don't think a judiciary is something we need yet... I mean, we don't even have laws yet...

I know this dosen't have to do with elections but,I like your Texas symbol.(I come from Texas)I did not join the first demogame. While I did lurk the forum from time to time, I chose not to join the game because of all the legal wrangling taking place.

I was considering joining this second incarnation. But, I find this thread proposing that the first thing that needs to be done is to elect a judiciary. Truth be told, it makes me a bit nervous.

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of a "Democracy Game". If it is a community effort to play a game of civ, then great! But, if the idea is to simulate a "civ-style" form of government, well ... Nothing wrong with that, its just that a government simulation really isn't my cup of tea.

i think having a judiciary system to start is (kinda) understandable.. but you have to think.. who controlled law at that stage in human civ? probably the trible leader (or shaman if we pick a civ that starts with mysticism) so i think we should have only one judiciary position untill our civ evolves beyond rocks and 10 turn road construction ;).. and as for a constitution.. we should have that as an unspoken background agreement untill we actually get *constitution* :).. i just kinda see all this being too advanced and well thought of for cavemen and nomads to immediately adhere to and follow unerringly.. but oh well.. these are just my thoughts,
peace,
Shattered

I really question the need for a judiciary before the game even starts. When I see arguments like this one, it reminds me why I rarely ever post in the demogames and instead just read the forum.

While I understand the need for the judiciary, I don't see why the forum's built in legal system (the forum rules and moderators) isn't sufficient during the pre-game stage.

thats because we want to cover all aspects of a civilization.. and while i think your right, i still think we need at least *one* seat to at least count for that part of government that has always existed.. the executioner ;)

i think having a judiciary system to start is (kinda) understandable.. but you have to think.. who controlled law at that stage in human civ? probably the trible leader (or shaman if we pick a civ that starts with mysticism) so i think we should have only one judiciary position untill our civ evolves beyond rocks and 10 turn road construction ;).. and as for a constitution.. we should have that as an unspoken background agreement untill we actually get *constitution* :).. i just kinda see all this being too advanced and well thought of for cavemen and nomads to immediately adhere to and follow unerringly.. but oh well.. these are just my thoughts,
peace,
Shattered

I see where you are coming from, and I rather appreciate and admire the idea... But at the same time, I don't think we should let people get 'locked out' of the game for realism concerns... After all... Elections wouldn't be allowed untill 'democracy' :eek:
And also of course, there are many people for whom the primary goal is to play some civ as a group... So their needs have to be accommodated...

Given those two things, however, I am very much in support of your ideas...

darn.. you got me with the elections wouldnt come until democracy.. but i think i can see past that with this: we would vote on the forum.. but in the game (roleplaying) it would seem like someone taking power and the like... not a tribal election.. though it would have proceded as such in the demogame forums.. yeah.. now im just rambling.. yawn...
peace,
Shattered