For the government, are you going to have individual ppl or parties.
The parties are more realistic but if you don't have enough people it won't work.

You can have a political party that organizes people of a particular viewpoint and has no formal existence within the legislature. That one's most likely.

We have had some trouble with political parties in the past. Most of the time we call them "citizen groups" and emphasize that it's not ok to use any form of coercion on the membership.

There are some good discussions in the previous game's forum, if you want to see some background information.

oh man.. ideas ideas ideas... i think im gonna start up my own political group.. just having trouble thinking of a platform for a 4000bc election ;)

We have had some trouble with political parties in the past. Most of the time we call them "citizen groups" and emphasize that it's not ok to use any form of coercion on the membership.


Does that mean all carrot, no stick, or is the carrot forbidden too? (i.e can a party offer a member some concession to convince him or her to vote a particular way?)

what about lobbying? :) :) :)

Did parties really get that out of hand before? It seems that a constitution guaranteeing free speech and the right to assemble would eliminate any overtly coercive power a party would have in this forum. Allowing citizens to say they are part of the "peaceful, diplomatic builder, pansy party" instead of the "religious fanatic, warmonger party" would serve a useful purpose. It would simplify and clarify candidate's positions on certain issues.

Let’s party! What's the harm? It may even be fun.

We can have political parties under the current constitution that was ratified.

There are some good discussions in the previous game's forum, if you want to see some background information.

That's an understatement if I ever heard one. :p

We've had vicious debates, civil wars, even warnings and probably bannings over the issue dating back to the early days of the demogame!


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

Basically, it boils down to this...

Political Groups - These imply the power to "fix" an election and deny membership to certain users. This is a no-no for the main reason that...

... or contain subject matter that doesn't directly allow other member participation.

Political Groups could say, "XYZ is in the Police State Civic Party. We're the Therocracy party, and no one from there can join this party!". This is going against the forum rules, which supercede the demogame. We've actually had people contest that notion.

They could also say, "Let's all vote for this person", or, "Don't vote for him, he's in the wrong group!". That's not fair to other users. What if there was a political group called "The Anti-Newbie Group" and it had 20 members (20 being large enough to get a majority every time). When a new person comes along, they'll be heckled every step of the way. They won't get any votes either. That's going to discourage participation.



Citizen Groups -

These are a "light-weight political group" if you want to view it that way. Think of them as "Guilds" instead. They can be merchants, philosophers, militias, or what-not. They can't directly affect the game (i.e., they can't ask people to vote, they can't claim a unit on the map and make it do what they want it to do), but they can add roleplay. For example, let's say we have some axemen who have 5 promotions, but now we have riflemen, cannons, and cavalry. A citizens military group could say, "Put those axemen in our capital/major cities as honorary guards". Since it probably won't affect the game that much, it could be done. Citizen Groups can also set goals, such as, "We will conquer the northern part of our continent", or, "We will capture all of the spices in the world.". They can start citizen discussion threads about that, too.



So, the rule of thumb is, you can't use your group as a political platform, influence votes, or influence gameplay in any direct way.


... It seems that a constitution guaranteeing free speech ....

Read it and weep.

Your rights to Freedom of Speech don't apply here.
You are welcome to have opinions. You are welcome to question certain subject matter posted on these forums. You are welcome to dislike a certain post or disagree with it. Though we typically condone people to express their opinions and ideas, we have the right to delete yours if necessary, should we consider it abusive.

It's part of the forum rules, so garunteeing free speech would be violating it. There was once a PI (Public Investigation in the old days - CC -- citizen complaint now) against the mods because of it, I believe.

chieftess.. your explanation of citizen groups just defined one of the core reasons i signed up for this demogame :) :)

So, a citizen group would be allowed to support a certain candidate or poll option, but it can't make (or, rather, try to make) people vote for it?

I assume that applies to us as individuals too?

It seems a citizen group can ask for anything but require nothing. Its strength would depend on whether the citizens choose to be obediant.

In the last game, we had a citizen group (party) which blackballed a DP who was posting abrasive replies to their questions. That was over the line, or at least on it. We lost a good technical player because after being the 1st ever to be denied election to the DP pool, he decided to walk and keep walking.

If a party's policy is based on a general principle thing, it's probably OK. If activities of a party involve targeting an individual, either positively or negatively, it's probably not ok.

surely you could have Parties because ultimately it down to each indiviual how he/she votes?

So, the rule of thumb is, you can't use your group as a political platform, influence votes, or influence gameplay in any direct way.

That outlaws almost every group we have had, including this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205739) group posted by a moderator. For example, the group I linked to actually violates two out of three of your rules:
1. It influences the vote in the poll of Vanilla vs Warlords
2. It influences game play since it determines what game we play

So that is against the forum rules?

That outlaws almost every group we have had, including this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205739) group posted by a moderator. For example, the group I linked to actually violates two out of three of your rules:
1. It influences the vote in the poll of Vanilla vs Warlords
2. It influences game play since it determines what game we play

So that is against the forum rules?

I would have to say the key word in CT's statement was "In a direct way."

So, they can promote their ideas, but they can not attempt to "force" anyone to vote their way.

ie. they can not kick anyone out that doesn't vote the way the founder of the group wants (ie. DS couldn't kick anyone out for voting for Warlords), they can not endorse specific candidates, they can not condemn specific candidates, etc.

EDIT: CT, forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth here, but this is how I read it.

what if a person advertised his/her run for election? could he/she post why they think they would best serve that position during the current time period?

what if a person advertised his/her run for election? could he/she post why they think they would best serve that position during the current time period?

Yes, an individual can promote themselves, in fact I feel like it should be encouraged, no mudslinging however of course. Say why you're a good candidate, now why the others aren't.

Traditionally Elections have been preceeded by Debates and a posting of individual platforms/policies.

Otherwise there may not be a clear difference between person A and person B.

I've said it one and I'll say it again. Political Parties are bad news. I believe Chieftess has already stated the points that I agree with.

what if a person advertised his/her run for election? could he/she post why they think they would best serve that position during the current time period?

In the past demogame, elections were pretty drab, partially because of the lack of participation, and partially because there wasn't any roleplaying or creativity. Election period seemed like just one week set aside, where the censor would really have to take out some time. We could make election periods a lot more fun, and campaigning would be one way to do that.

I agree that political parties and campaigning will make elections much more interesting.

I agree that political parties and campaigning will make elections much more interesting.
Political Parties and elections should be separate. There is nothing worse than having a party vote against a candidate just because he is in the wrong party. The last thing I wish to see during the elections is a Block Vote.

Not everyone would join a political party and ppl who didn't would vote for party members and the elected ppl would then decide among themselves who had what position

In the past demogame, elections were pretty drab, partially because of the lack of participation, and partially because there wasn't any roleplaying or creativity. Election period seemed like just one week set aside, where the censor would really have to take out some time. We could make election periods a lot more fun, and campaigning would be one way to do that.

In order for elections to be interesting, you've got to have competitive races. The first term last DG did have a few of those. My personal favorite from any DG was going up against DZ for President. We really had a wide-ranging, spirited debate over matters. It resulted in betters plans and a better term, in my opinion.

Debates cannot be forced. They can be encouraged by citizens that vote for candidates that discuss their ideas, as opposed to ones that rely only on friendship and name recognition.

But first and most important, elections must be contested.

-- Ravensfire

In order for elections to be interesting, you've got to have competitive races. The first term last DG did have a few of those. My personal favorite from any DG was going up against DZ for President. We really had a wide-ranging, spirited debate over matters. It resulted in betters plans and a better term, in my opinion.


For me it was DZ for the foreign office. It was my greatest term as well, the russian crisis was cool. second best was Beating the snot out of Blackheart for the judicary position. I was openly corrupt and i still won.

I was openly corrupt and i still won.

Probably not the best thing to say if you plan on running for future offices! :lol:

Probably not the best thing to say if you plan on running for future offices! :lol:


na ill be fine, i got all the voters in my pocket like so many dollars and dimes.

How can one be corrupt in a game just for fun?

Best regards,

Political Parties and elections should be separate. There is nothing worse than having a party vote against a candidate just because he is in the wrong party. The last thing I wish to see during the elections is a Block Vote.

CG, even in real life, people don't vote along party lines. Why would everyone do that here?

How can one be corrupt in a game just for fun?

Best regards,

Nobody roleplays a mafia Don. Saying he's corrupt is part of the RP. :)

Thank you, DaveShack.

Best regards,

So everyone elected will be an independent, even if the parlamentary system is used? Different.

CG, even in real life, people don't vote along party lines. Why would everyone do that here?
I see two of Cheftess's points has passed you. There is the chance that people who own the political party will heckle or even force their members to vote for a certan canidate within the private confines of the PM system and the chatroom (Outside of #civfanatics and #turnchat)


Political Groups could say, "XYZ is in the Police State Civic Party. We're the Therocracy party, and no one from there can join this party!". This is going against the forum rules, which supercede the demogame. We've actually had people contest that notion.

They could also say, "Let's all vote for this person", or, "Don't vote for him, he's in the wrong group!". That's not fair to other users. What if there was a political group called "The Anti-Newbie Group" and it had 20 members (20 being large enough to get a majority every time). When a new person comes along, they'll be heckled every step of the way. They won't get any votes either. That's going to discourage participation.

It seems that all the arguments against so called poltical parties are about percieved flaws with the basic idea of political organizations. Maybe some clarification, especially from Cheiftess since she seems the most knowledgable. Once we get the game going, are you saying that a group of citizens can't start a group that advocates for a particular issue? Are you saying that this group can't nominate and support candidates who agree with their platform.

Again it seems like people have a problem with the "idea" of political parties, probably arising from inequities they see in real life political parties. This is a game, and I guess I don't see why as citizens in this game we can't rally around a particular candidate, issue, or course of action.

Well, you can rally for a particular candidate or make a citizen group that drives for a particular issue, but what they don't want you to do is make up a political party that endorses certain candidates and trys to cajole it's members to vote only for the party's candidates. I might be wrong, but I see no reason why citizen's can not partake in advocating a candidate. However, rallying around a certain issue or course of action is allowed and can be done so in the form of citizen group.

I might be wrong, but I see no reason why citizen's can not partake in advocating a candidate.
That's perfectly fine - you'll see quite a bit of citizens campaigning for and against other citizens. Mostly for, of course.

What's not permitted are groups that restrict membership in any way, or groups that say *require* voting in certain ways.

-- Ravensfire

/Ok so not to beat a dead horse I'm just trying to understand what we can and cannot do. Since it seems from all the other thread people are getting pretty in depth here. So, if I understand correctly, we can organize citizen groups to lobby for certain issues, and these citzen groups can say we support this particular candidate. They cannot however say to their membership that if you do not vote for a particular candidate you are out of the group, or a "party boss" can't tell a Elder or whoever to do a particular thing in the game for the good of the party, etc. I guess that sounds reasonable but how would anyone know any of this is going on even?

I guess that sounds reasonable but how would anyone know any of this is going on even?

There are ways of finding out. :scan:

It seems to me that some are taking into account some prejudices about the political party system. I don't understand how anyone could be coerced into voting along a party line because without closed membership, the party lacks any sort of leverage to do so. Or perhaps I am missing a part of the arguement against them.

For instance, if I would like to form a Hawk Citizens group for citizens who are in favor of a strong military and generally promote aggressive behavior (rather than pacifism or isolationism) in foreign affairs, are there any objections?

In my views, it would promote debate within the party and organize ideas and debate outside of the party.

For instance, if I would like to form a Hawk Citizens group for citizens who are in favor of a strong military and generally promote aggressive behavior (rather than pacifism or isolationism) in foreign affairs, are there any objections?
There is nothing wrong with this, it is given a different term than political party, by being called a citizen group. Political parties endorse certain candidates and fry to coerce members into voting for it's candidates. It can also exclude people from being members which breaks forum rules.

There is nothing wrong with this, it is given a different term than political party, by being called a citizen group. Political parties endorse certain candidates and fry to coerce members into voting for it's candidates. It can also exclude people from being members which breaks forum rules.

So if there were a citizen group exactly like what mattwithanh suggested, but it were called instead the Nationalist Victory Party instead of the Hawk Citizens, would it be banned?

How the heck are we supposed to have a civil war? Hello? This is quite complex.

So if there were a citizen group exactly like what mattwithanh suggested, but it were called instead the Nationalist Victory Party instead of the Hawk Citizens, would it be banned?"You say to-may-to, I say ta-ma-ta" (different pronunciations of tomato for those of you who don't get it.) Maybe a better analogy would be "If it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, it's a dog"

Point being, I can call it the Nationalist Political Party or Nationalist Citizen Group, but that doesn't change it's function. If the words Political Party are attached to it, and it doesn't violate any of the forum rules or principles listed before, than it's fine. If the words Citizen Group are attached to it, and it doesn't allow membership to some or forces people to vote one way, than it's not fine.

If the words Political Party are attached to it, and it doesn't violate any of the forum rules or principles listed before, than it's fine. If the words Citizen Group are attached to it, and it doesn't allow membership to some or forces people to vote one way, than it's not fine.

We have a winnah!

-- Ravensfire