conservative (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.

1: resistant to change
2: avoiding excess

This group is primarily concerned with the following items:
Resist unnecessary rule changes and additions to preserve a minimalist ruleset.
Retention of the power of the people and resistance against additional specified powers in the government.
Promotion of a cooperative environment.
To that effect the members of the group are expected to perform watchdog duties for abuses to those items and notify the group in this thread.

We will discuss and evaluate proposed legislation and do our best to frame viable legislation in a minimalist manner.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we will work together as a group to show that a cooperative environment without huge overhead is not only possible but preferred. Discourse, tradition and compromise will be our watchwords.

Members:
Azale
bacon king
bootstoots
Chieftess
CivGeneral
Cpt Caos
Donovan Zoi
Eklektikos
eyrei
Falcon02
Grandmaster
Immortal
naervod
Paalikles
Peri
Plexus
Shaitan (founder)
Sheep2
Sir John
Stuck_As_a_Mac
Watergate
Zarn

Current Issues

Unnecessary Rules - Poll Regulations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51991)

Cooperative Support - The Polling Standards Commission (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52260)

Desired Legislation - Basics of Code of Laws (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52802)

I'll sign up for this one too (inspite of my initial misgivings at the name) since I heartily agree with these aims :D

Welcome aboard, EK.

I came up with the idea on the spur of the moment and didn't put a whole lot of thought into the name. We can always change it. ;)

Aside from the scary name I would like to join too.;)

Greetings Peri. Great to see you here. Perhaps a name change is seriously in order. So far 100% of the new recruits have mentioned it. :lol:

Sign me up, please.

Welcome eyrei. :D

Notice: I've updated the first post with the beginning hashings of a charter. Any feedback or fleshing out are very much encouraged (but keep it small ;) ).

Im into this one shaitan, BIG TIME.

:goodjob:

5 hours, 5 members. At this rate we'll have the whole population joined up in a couple days. :)

I am so in. No excess laws!

Im in.

Welcome, my friends. :)

I suggest the first order of business be opposition to any attempt to establish polling regulations until it has been shown that leniency is being abused.

I second this proposal! onward conservaties! fight unnecesssary laws!

I'm in.

I'm in. Although this group wouldn't be my idea of a great group in RL, this isn't RL. The DG needs to be simple ;)

Since I am new to the Demogame some of the subtleties escape me. However, as far as I can see regarding polls, we should anounce that there is going to be one and that it is open from x until y. Then we all vote and the result is posted. It is the responsibility of the citizens to vote so any result should be valid. If only 10 people vote then shame on the those who didnt. Those who did not vote have no right to complain if the result isn't what they wanted.

I hope that rant isnt too harsh
:)

@Plexus & naervod: Welcome to the group. :D

@eyrei - I agree. The discussion thread in question is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51991).

@Peri - Absolutely. So long as the pollsters use common sense there's really no need for poll legislation. The only real problem in the poll area that I've seen is when new folk come in with more excitement than restraint and post polls without quite knowing the situation well enough. If this group works to help those folks (and encourage the rest of the players to do the same) I don't see any reason to make rules on how to post a poll.

Originally posted by eyrei
I suggest the first order of business be opposition to any attempt to establish polling regulations until it has been shown that leniency is being abused.
Most definitely agreed.

I would like to join.

Im definitivly in here as I used about one week to halfly understand the rules in the last demogame when I joined.
BTW: Please change the name to something like: Minimalists or something like that.. :D

Welcome aboard to Azale and Sir John.

Update: I've added a "Current Issues" section to the first post.

Query: Several people have stated that the group name isn't that hot. The idea behind "Conservative" wasn't in the modern political sense for far right republicans. It's taken in the meaning of conservation and protection of the status quo. "Minimalists" is a decent name but only hits one of the three basic tenets of the group. Let's take renaming suggestions for a couple days and then we'll poll for a name change.

I AM a conservative so i dont mind the name.


But how naming ourselves after a bird thats between hawk (war hawk) and dove (peace dove).

Maybe owls? Wise and all seeing.

Tenets of war and peace aren't a part of our manifesto though. We're not a balance group for the hawks and doves.

how about the seagull :P :D

Yes, but Owls could still be used.

Wise and all seeing like you said






And I was pondering Seagulls.:D

Less is more. This is a very useful group. I'd like to join.

Welcome to the group, Watergate. :goodjob:

I'm in.

Welcome aboard, CT!

I'd like to join too.

I'll join. :)
And Shaitan, you say "far right Republican" like it's a bad thing. ;)

Welcome aboard Grandmaster and Cpt Caos!

@Grandmaster - Depends how far. ;)

I think the secondary purpose of this group should be to avoid me having to do this:

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/CT_eyrei.gif

you sure this isn't a political party? I thought those were not allowed...

The sort of political party that is banned is one that expects its members to vote as a block. Mainly, citizen groups are expected to 'lobby' for certain ideas. However, I think their other purpose is simple roleplaying.

Nope, not a political group. There is no campaigning, block voting or professed support of any candidate(s). We are basically a watchdog group. When members see things that go against our charter they post here to bring it to the attention of the rest of the group. Vocal membership is important as it shows at a glance that our general principles have strong support among the player population.

I would like to join!

Welcome to the group, Sheep2. :D

I would have to say the Minimalist Co-op would be a good name and not tied into any RL political undertones throughout the world.

Oh yes.Count me in. Long live simplicity

Welcome aboard, Paalikles. Good to have you with us. :)

I'll join. I want to make sure that our simpler rules don't leave anything important out. Shaitan, do you (or anyone else) have a new set of rules under construction?

Welcome, bootstoots!

At this time there are no rule sets under consideration (as far as I know). I believe that this is the time to prepare for them though. We all realize that there will be rules introduced so I believe we should champion the method of their introduction. As such, I propose the introduction of the first part our Code of Laws, specifically the method of introduction of laws. Let's see if we can come to an agreement here in the group and then we can start a general discussion for the populace.

Proposed laws:

A) The Code of Laws exists as the second tier of rules. No set of rules shall exist between this Code of Laws and the Constitution. No lower set of rules shall conflict with this Code of Laws.

B) Alteration and addition to the Code of Laws shall require a poll of the populace. Said poll must achieve a supermajority for adoption. Specifically, the votes for a change must be double the votes opposed to change, with abstentions excepted.

In support of our third directive (promotion of a cooperative environment) I would like to encourage all group members to contribute and support the Polling Standards Commission (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52260). It is a citizens' group expressly targetting the use and promotion of fair polling practices. I would also encourage our group members to help keep that group headed to voluntary adoption and support rather than the introduction of rules.

Simple, clean, and straight forward. I like it

I am willing to join.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Proposed laws:

A) The Code of Laws exists as the second tier of rules. No set of rules shall exist between this Code of Laws and the Constitution. No lower set of rules shall conflict with this Code of Laws.

B) Alteration and addition to the Code of Laws shall require a poll of the populace. Said poll must achieve a supermajority for adoption. Specifically, the votes for a change must be double the votes opposed to change, with abstentions excepted.


Sounds like a good start. I like the idea of excepting abstentions as it will encourage citizens to make a decision to be heard.

Oh, by the way. Please count me in. I will help this organization as little as I can, if you get my drift. ;)

Welcome to Zarn and Donovan Zoi! :D

Looks like my base rule suggestion is fairly well accepted in our group. Let's let it run through the weekend for any other comments and I'll most likely post a public discussion thread on Monday.

One thing - let's change our name to something that doesn't have a RL political meaning.

Public discussion thread opened for the proposed COL start. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52802)

We've had a couple of suggestions and I have opened a thread for us to vote for a new group name (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52803).

I would like to sign up for this Group :).

BTW, I already voted in the Poll regarding the name change :).

It's good to have you on board, CivGeneral. :)

I'm in, my politics are conservative anyway

Welcome aboard, Falcon! See the first post for our current hot items.

The results are in (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=971013#post971013). We will continue to be known as The Conservative Association.

Hmmmm, the conservative association hey...
Well, regardless of the fact that the name is not supposed to realte to the poitical ideology, they clearly share common roots. Conservatism, including the ideas that stem from removing 'unnessisary' laws and the movement towards less infringement by the 'meddlesome' governement is one of the most regressive and damaging political/social phenomenons. It is conservatives that constantly oppose movements towrds social justice and equality ESPECIALLY the protection of the disadvantaged by those same laws and govenment. Every law and every change to our laws should be looked at simply from the standpoint of whether it will be benefical to the people of fanatica. Beurocracy is a consideration, but to form a citizen group that takes as a starting point the opposition of new laws is to oppose many of the most innovative and important changes that we have made and will continue to make in our great nation.
Seeing many of the achetects of those innovations join a citizen group that would seek to stifle invention and change and hold back social progression is very dissapointing indeed.
I will not be joining this group.

Almightyjosh, this is not intended to be a citizen group of conservatives. If it were, I certainly would not join. We are not opposed to new laws, we just want to restrict the ruleset a bit. I wanted to get the name changed, but this group voted overwhelmingly against a name change. We certainly do not want to stifle invention and change. The entire purpose of this citizen group, as far as I can tell, is to make sure that we do not end up with a huge, complicated ruleset with unnecessary laws.

Quite right, bootstoots. We are not against any laws, we are against unnecessary ones. For example, we fully support the Polling Standards Commission (many of our members are also members of the Commission). That group is adressing a potential problem without creating new laws.

Another example would be something like the debate system. It is being discussed now and will be revamped. We support this system of cooperative change, we just don't want a load of strict laws restrictively defining it.

If it works without laws then we don't want laws written. If something comes up where a real need for laws is apparent we would not oppose them, we just believe that the effort put into making laws is better served by fomenting a cooperative environment.

It's working very well so far. :)

Your concerns are noted, AJ. I initially had reservations about membership here as well, as I would never set foot under the "little tent" of RL conservatism.

However, we are taking a different approach to this DemoGame. We are pursuing a ruleset that allows for respectful debate and discussion, rather than adopting laws that would punish our leaders for making one wrong move. So far this game(and granted, it's still early), there has been no hint of a PI and citizens groups are thriving. This was the exact opposite in DG2.

That said, I respectfully request that you consider membership in this organization. Unlike the RLs, we welcome the dissenting viewpoint as it will ensure that we are making the proper decisions for everyone regarding law.

Originally posted by bootstoots
Almightyjosh, this is not intended to be a citizen group of conservatives. If it were, I certainly would not join. We are not opposed to new laws, we just want to restrict the ruleset a bit. I wanted to get the name changed, but this group voted overwhelmingly against a name change. We certainly do not want to stifle invention and change. The entire purpose of this citizen group, as far as I can tell, is to make sure that we do not end up with a huge, complicated ruleset with unnecessary laws.

I agree with the idea of your post BT. Instead of the idea of restricting the ruleset, how about promoting the better management of the ruleset for everyone one in the game. The way we're doing that by promoting discussion and debate is what this group is about:D

I'll contain my rage for an iota to ask a question...
I was away when the third game was started, and coming back I can't seem to find our beautifully crafted three-tiered law books from dg2, are they gone? We spent so long working out that kickass system. All I can find is a rule summary by Shaitan.
Have conservatives like yourselves destroyed all our wonderfull laws, or am I looking in the wrong place?

Almightyjosh, hopefully you will be comforted to know that this group alone did not tear down the Three Books from DG2. At the end of that game, Fanatikans were polled on a wide variety of factors for us to implement in DemoGame 3. Among them was a poll to determine our ruleset.

As you will see by the links I have provided, this matter ended up at the polls twice(plus a preliminary informational poll) before being accepted by the public. The nation as a whole decided democratically to bring over the basics(Constitution only) and build anew from there.

I believe that this outcome was a response to the seemingly constant barrage of Public Investigations that many Fanatikans believed to be a distraction. The belief here in DemoGame 3 is that everything can be worked out through respectful discussion and adherence to our more lenient Constitution.

Here are those links:

DG3 Ruleset: Discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50220)

DG3 Ruleset: Informational Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50013)

DG3 Ruleset: Official Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50517)

DG3 Ruleset: Final Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50973)

I'll join :evil: