Folks, it is time to start a discussion on the particulars of the DG5 ruleset. I would like to organize this using this thread as an anchor for the Constitution discussion, with separate threads for any issues which result in a lot of controversy. This should be a lot more streamlined than the DG4 discussion which had a separate thread for every article.

Here is my proposal for a starting point. :hammer:


We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of
friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our
beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must
have an equal voice in the government and ruling of our country,
that government itself is a construct of and servant to the people,
that rules, regulations, and laws should be established to
facilitate the active participation of the people and to make
possible the dreams and desires of the citizens.

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances
and the right to vote.

Article B. Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the
Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower
forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be
valid that contradicts these Articles excepting an
amendment or lower form of law specifically tasked
to do so.

Article C. The government will consist of the Executive Branch,
Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by thePresident who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
1. The Minister of Internal Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic and cultural
initiatives, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade and Technology shall be
responsible for all tech acquisition and trade
initiatives, as prescribed by law.
5. The Minister of Finance and Labor shall be responsible
for the allocation of monies in all forms except as part
of trades which fall under the authority of the Minister
of Trade and Technology; and for prioritization of
worker tasks and assignment of workers to tasks.

Article E. The Legislative Branch will be the Congress,
will consists of the entirety of the citizenry and is
responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice
and two Associate Justices. These three justices are
tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. The Chief Justice shall have the additional
responsibility to organize and conduct the affairs of the
Judicial Branch.

Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term. The runner
up in each election (if one exists) shall be the deputy for
that position. Any office which is left vacant at the end
of an election due to no candidates accepting a nomination
or due to all candidates withdrawing shall be filled by
appointment by the highest ranking leader of a citizen to
fill the position. Any elected position which becomes
permanently vacant, such that the official will not return,
shall be filled first by the deputy for that position, or by
appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.
Vacant deputy positions shall be filled by appointment by the
leader of a citizen to fill the deputy position.

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
in the same branch of givernment simultaneously. No person
may be a leader of one office and deputy of a different office
in the same branch simultaneously. The President and Chief
Justice may not hold any other elected office or deputy position.

Article I. Census, and Amending the Constitution
1. The census shall be defined as the average number
of votes cast, dropping fractions, in each of the
contested elections in the most recent general
election.
2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution
shall require each of the following:
a. A poll which is open for at least 48 hours, which
states the text of the proposed new section(s),
the text of the section(s) being replaced, and
posing the question in the form of yes / no /
abstain.
b. A majority of yes votes.
c. A number of yes votes greater than or equal to
2/3 the census current at the start of voting on
the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.

Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people.

Article K. All irreversible game actions must progress during a
public turnchat, while reversible game actions(ie build
queues) that adhere to legal instruction can be prepared
offline.

Article L. The constitution, laws and standards of Fanatika can never
be contrary to the rules and regulations of the
Civfanatics forums. Moderators may veto any such
constitutional amendments, laws or standards.

Article M. Commission of any game action by any person other than
the Designated Player while carrying out their duties
that is not instantly reversible without reloading the
save is strictly forbidden.
1. Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation
of Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance
or war to exit the bargain screen. This may be done
but the game must be immediately closed without
saving.

I like it, It looks pretty good. I think once the detalis are picked out we can make the precise changes to make the DG much more fun.

I personaly like the Runner-up being the Deputy :)

Oops. This is an accidental post. I'm going to post my revisions tomorrow, when I have more time.

I personaly like the Runner-up being the Deputy :)
That because of the military elections?

Id add the ability to "sack" deputies for not doing their job, just in case :p That would have to be run by the President however before it went into effect. In turn I think the president should be able to sack people in ther main position for not doing their job.

I agree with Sarevok that the not-elected contestants, should not be automatic deputies. They weren't elected, meaning they are not the one the citizens want in that office.

I agree with Sarevok that the not-elected contestants, should not be automatic deputies. They weren't elected, meaning they are not the one the citizens want in that office.
I would have to disagree with you on that. Back in Demogame 1-3, Deputies are technicly an elected offical. I personaly want to see the automatic deputization of 2nd placers in the elections to be deputies. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to keep the people's interest still active if they are disgurraged from a loss election. The automadic deputization would modivate the 2nd place canidate to do better when he is a deputy.

We had a significant problem with appointed deputies, and I think we need to return to the previous method. My biggest problem with appointing deputies was that nobody applied and I didn't feel like leaders should be forcing people who don't want to be deputy by appointing them.

I have been busy lately, but I've got my criticism (of course I have criticism. How could I not have anything to change? ;) ). Included are the changed articles, with changes in italics.

Article A. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right
to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances,
the right to vote, the right to advise officials through polls,
and the right to recall an official.

Article D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, as well as
the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Misister of Technology shall be
responsible for all tech acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the
keeping of the peace and the construction of wonders.
7. The President, and all his Ministers, are elected on a
regular basis by the National Assembly, and may be
recalled by that body, to be replaced by a deputy.

Article E. The Legislative Branch will be the National Assembly,
will consists of the entirety of the citizenry and is
responsible for the drafting of new Laws and the election
of executive, legislative, and judicial officials.
1. The Vice or Deputy President shall preside over the
Assembly and the drafting of laws.

Article F. The Judicial Branch will consist of one Chief Justice
and two Associate Justices. These five justices are
tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting
laws (if any) in a fair and impartial manner as prescribed
by law. They have the aditional role of overseeing the
term elections impartially, including breaking tie votes.
The Chief Justice shall have the additional responsibility
to organize and conduct the affairs of the Judicial Branch.
The justices shall be elected every two terms.

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
in the same branch of givernment simultaneously. No person
may be a leader of one office and deputy of a different office
in the same branch simultaneously. The President, Vice
President and Chief Justice may not hold any other
elected office or deputy position.

Article J. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will
of the people. Should they fail to do so, the National
Assembly may vote to have them recalled and replaced by
their deputy.


Overall seems quite good, short, and simple, but I think it needs to be a little more specific than that. I mean, forgetting to say who is an elected official is a little too simple. ;)

Okay, you need to change the judiciary, it should be changed every 1 term(not 2), there should only 3 ppl in the judiciary(we are already having problems filling all the positions), the judiciary shouldn't oversee elections(thats for the election office), and they should vote on ties(that gives ppl in the judiciary 2 votes)...

Otherwise the changes are okay...

Well....who's in the election office, then? I figure the judicial is about as impartial as you can get, so why not let them do it? Though I'm fine with changing the number and term limit.

We should probably also put an article in there about provinces and mayors, while we're at it. I agree that keeping it as short as possible is good, but it needs to outline more things than that.

I agree with Sarevok that the not-elected contestants, should not be automatic deputies. They weren't elected, meaning they are not the one the citizens want in that office.
Actually, I have no problem with the 2nd place being the deputy. I just want the leaders to have the option to send a PM to the president asking permission to "Sack" a deputy for not doing their job. The deputy position then would be filled by someone jointly appreved by the President and the Minister.

I'm thinking the reason we had so few people run for an office is because of several things:

1 - Only being able to run for 1 office.
2 - Runner ups aren't automatically deputies.

So, why bother with an election if you're just going to be appointed? I'm all for deputies. (Even the runner up of the presidential race was the deputy). The main thing that worries me is the demogame getting, essentially, less and less positions. Right now, it's the president, and 4 (5 later) advisors, plus governors that have all the power to play the game. As it stands now, deputies can't "fill in" for an advisor if the advisor isn't at the turnchat unless the advisor posts an instruction. The problem there is if the advisor has to leave at the last minute and can't post.

This brings up another point.

Kill the "no instructions during the chat" clause. There's areas where many things can happen. Suppose trade said, "Trade Bronze Working to civ X on turn 2", but civ X gets it from a goody hut, or another civ gets Bronze Working, and the trade with Civ X depreciates. Take military for example. There were a *LOT* of things that you could say I left out last term. The problem is, I just didn't know:

a - Where the AI would come from after the first few turns.
b - How the culture borders would be affected (i.e., when we took England, all cities were level 4 culture - I had no way of knowing that). Such a detail could have delayed our invasion of the Zulus. It didn't, but the point is, things like those may have to allow for adjustments in the instructions.
c - I didn't know what troops would win what battles, and how many we'd have left over. Essentially, it's impossible to know how many defenders each city has.
d - One of the carriers I wanted wasn't built, but was built in another location. There was no way I even knew about this (even though I asked the governors) because it was posted both at the last minute, and while I was at work. So, it was impossible for me to adjust my directions accordingly.

Had I written down every single possibility, then I would have probably needed 2-3 posts of instructions, not to mention that it would take up all of my time.

Also remember that people aren't going to have time to micromanage every aspect of the game in their instructions. When I surveyed people on why they left, this was the response:

50% - Not enough time.
25% - Ruleset/pre-occupied with the ruleset/slow pace/too many rules
25% - Other/Still lurking


We should really strive for a DG1-DG2 hybrid ruleset.

I would find myself in the 25% range of Ruleset/pre-occupoed w/ ruleset. I beleve that we should bring back the Demogame 1-2 ruleset and I am all for having the deputies to be as a runner-up possition. I am also 100% for removing the Kill the "no instructions during the chat" clause.

I am for having runnerups as deputies, but defiently, we need to allow ppl to run for multiple positions(or maybe make a limit of 3 elections one person can be in)
I wasn't here in dg1 or dg2 so, I wouldn't know the ruleset that good...

Add to the Culture Minister to serve an advisory role in all things cultural, and I like it.

I am for having runnerups as deputies, but defiently, we need to allow ppl to run for multiple positions(or maybe make a limit of 3 elections one person can be in)
I wasn't here in dg1 or dg2 so, I wouldn't know the ruleset that good...
Well, here is a little DG history. Back from Demogame I to II, there is a rule that said that you can only run a maximum of 2 offices if you dont already hold an office. In Demogame III, IIRC, you can run in a unlimited offices regardless if you were a leader or not (Usualy people limited themselves to 2-3 offices).

A 2 or 3 term limit to one position should be the norm. I think DG2 had something like that. It prevents one person from holding an office for too long. (prevents the demogame from turning into a popularity contest).

I'll toss my proposal out there as well. Very similar to the others ...


Constitution
We, the people of Fanatica, in order to create an atmosphere of
friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our beloved
country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have an equal
voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government
itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules,
regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active
participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and desires
of the citizens.

Article A. Citizens
All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen
Registry are citizens of our country. Citizens have the
right to assemble, the right to free movement, the right to
free speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to
representation, the right to seek to redress grievances and
the right to vote.

Article B. Rules
Governing rules consists of these Articles of the
Constitution, such amendments that may follow and lower
forms of law that may be implemented. No law that
contradicts these Articles is valid except an amendment
specifically tasked to do so.

Article C. Will of the People
All Elected officials must plan and act according to the
will of the people as expressed through discussions and
polls.

Article D. Terms and Appointments
All elected positions have a fixed term of one month,
beginning on the first day of the month (GMT), and must be
filled by a citizen of Fanatica. All elected officials,
except the Judiciary, shall appoint as deputy a citizen.
All elected positions that become vacant must be filled by
appointing the deputy to that office, or should no deputy
exist for that position, any citizen, by the President to
fulfill the remainder of the term.

Vacancies in the Judiciary will be filled by the President
and the remaining members of the Judiciary acting in
concert to appoint citizens to the Judiciary.

Article E. Elections
Elections for all Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and
Provincial Governorships shall be held monthly. Elections
shall be conducted by the Election Office and supervised by
the Judiciary. Nominations and debates will open 7 days
before the new term. Election polls being posted 4 days
before the new term and will remain open for 3 days.
Citizens will be allowed to run for more than two offices in
any given term.

There will be one poll for each office. The Judiciary
election will be a single poll for all choices, configured
as a multiple choice poll, with the candidate receiving
the most votes becoming the Chief Justice.

All ties are to be handled by run-off elections initiated
immediately following the close of the initial polls and
will last for two days. This process may be repeated as
needed.

Article F. Multiple Offices
No citizen shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Minister, Justice, Provincial Governor, or
deputy for those positions) simultaneously, whether elected
or appointed to the position.

Article G. Government Structure
The government will consist of the Executive Branch,
Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch.

Article H. Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and
implementing the will of the People. It is headed by the
President who shall take direction from a Council of 5
Leaders and from other elected and appointed officials via
the game session instruction thread.

The President shall be responsible for establishing the
game play schedule, uses of Great Leaders, conducting
discussions on worker actions, and any matter not covered
by another elected official.

The Minister of Internal Affairs is responsible determining
city placement, settler movement, provincial borders,
construction of Great and Small Wonders, serving as
Governor for any city not controlled by a Governor,
monitoring overall cultural and happiness levels and
coordinate the efforts of Governors on National Projects.

The Minister of Finance is responsible for the slider
settings and approving all uses of cash.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for matters
involving non-trade treaties with foreign nations and all
non-technology espionage activities.

The Minister of Defense is responsible for all military
strategy and troop activities.

The Minister of Trade and Technology is responsible for all
technology acquisitions (including through steals) and
trade initiatives.

The President and each Minister shall determine any
policies and procedures needed to carry out their duties.

Article I. Legislative Branch
The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses.

The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors, each
of whom are responsible for the care, management and use of
the cities and lands of a province through the setting of
build queues, allocation of laborers on tiles, the use of
population rushes and drafting of soldiers.

Each Governor shall determine any policies and procedures
needed to carry out their duties.

The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the
citizenry and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws.

Article J. Judicial Branch
The Judicial Branch consists of one Chief Justice and two
Associate Justices. These three justices are tasked with
upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws (if any)
in a fair and impartial manner.

The Judiciary will conduct fair, impartial and speedy trials of any
citizen of accused of violating any law of Fanatica in an
expedient manner.

The Judiciary will conduct hearings to review any current
or proposed law for conflicts with existing law in an
expedient manner. Should an existing law be deeming in
conflict with another law, the Judiciary shall have the
power to resolve that conflict by striking down that law,
or portion of that law that is causing the conflict.
Should the conflict be with the proposed law, and the
conflict is not resolved within the proposal, the Judiciary
will return the proposal to the Congress for more
discussion. Should the proposed law pass review, the
Judiciary shall post the official poll to adopt or reject
the proposal.

The Chief Justice shall determine any policies and
procedures needed to carry out the duties assigned to the
Judiciary.

Article K. Designated Player
The Designated Player is the President of Fanatica.

The Designated Player is responsible for all worker
actions, and for the plans and directions for those areas
where no leader issued instructions.

Should the Designated Player be unable to attend the
scheduled session, be later than 15 minutes from the
scheduled start of the session, unable to continue playing
the save during the session, or unable to communicate for
more than 10 minute with those attending the session,
another citizen may assume the role of Designated Player.
This citizen will be chosen using the Chain of Command as
follows: Vice-President (Deputy of the President),
Minister of Internal Affairs, Minister of Finance, Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defense, Minister of Trade
and Technology.

The Designated Player may end a turn chat at any time at
their discretion.

Article L. Turn Chats
All irreversible game actions must progress during a public
game play session, and be carried out by the Designated
Player. Reversible game actions (i.e. build queues, troop
movement along railways, etc.) that adhere to legal
instruction can be prepared offline by any citizen
authorized by the President.

All turn chats will be no longer than 10 turns. A turn
chat may be extended up to 3 turns to complete a period of
anarchy, complete a technology, complete a wonder, or
conclude a war, provided no other significant decisions
must be made during that extension.

A save will be made available to all citizens after the
pre-turn actions, at the conclusion of the fifth turn and
each subsequent fifth turn, and at the end of the game play
session.

Article M. Playing the Save
Commission of any game action by any person, other than the
Designated Player while carrying out their duties, which is
not instantly reversible without reloading the save, is
strictly forbidden.

Exception: Determining options in the renegotiation of
Peace agreements requires an action of acceptance or war to
exit the bargain screen. This may be done but the game must
be immediately closed without saving.

Article N. CFC and Mods
The constitution, laws and standards of Fanatica can never
be contrary to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics
forums. Moderators may veto any such Constitutional
amendments, laws or standards.

Article O. Census and Amendments
The census is defined as the average number of votes cast,
dropping fractions, in each of the contested elections in
the most recent general election.

Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution requires
each of the following:
a. Successful completion of Judicial Review by the
Judiciary.
b. A poll which is open for at least 48 hours, which
states the text of the proposed new section(s), the text
of the section(s) being replaced, and posing the
question in the form of yes / no / abstain.
c. A majority of yes votes.
d. A number of yes votes greater than or equal to 2/3
the census current at the start of voting on the
amendment, dropping any fraction therein.

Ratification of Laws that do not amend the Constitution
requires each of the following:
a. Successful completion of Judicial Review by the
Judiciary.
b. A poll which is open for at least 48 hours, which
states the text of the proposed new section(s), the text
of the section(s) being replaced, and posing the
question in the form of yes / no / abstain.
c. A majority of yes votes.


V1.1
-- E: changed restriction for number of offices to two, also moved it
-- H: added organize discussions on worker actions to President
-- J: "fair and impartial" to "fair, impartial and speedy"


I'm biased, but I really like this. Why - it provides the core structure we need, and that's about it. Certain things are intentially left OUT of the Constitution with the expectation that we will pass laws to fill in those details.

A Constitution should provide a strong basis and be challenging to change. The supporting laws provide the details, and are much easier to change.

-- Ravensfire

We had a significant problem with appointed deputies, and I think we need to return to the previous method. My biggest problem with appointing deputies was that nobody applied and I didn't feel like leaders should be forcing people who don't want to be deputy by appointing them.

So you're going to assume that the person that finished second DOES want to be the deputy?

I've also got issues with allowing leaders to be deputies - that's too much power in one person. If a person is elected to an office, that office should be getting all of their focus.

-- Ravensfire

Well....who's in the election office, then? I figure the judicial is about as impartial as you can get, so why not let them do it? Though I'm fine with changing the number and term limit.

Notice that this gets ignored?

The Election Office is de facto run by CG and Boots. There are no rules. There are no checks.

There have been, and probably will continue to be problems with communication, timeliness, dismissing valid feedback/criticism and ignoring rules.

This is usually from only one person.

-- Ravensfire

Add to the Culture Minister to serve an advisory role in all things cultural, and I like it.

What I want to do is, by moving certain things out of the MIA, to encourage the MIA to be more aggressive on Cultural issues. During my term as MIA, I always had a summary of culture, and kept after governors to increase culture where needed.

-- Ravensfire

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I am also against any proposals that would allow anyone other than the DP to make binding decisions during a game play session.

Finally, can we have a nice small, generally worded constitution that is easy to understand?

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I am also against any proposals that would allow anyone other than the DP to make binding decisions during a game play session.

Finally, can we have a nice small, generally worded constitution that is easy to understand?
I would have to disagree with you on that point. I beleve that deputies should be the runner up in the elections. IMO, deputies are the esential part of the demogame since they are the assistants to aspiering leaders. I personaly like the "deputy runner up from the elections" because I can work with the leader and better refine my skills so that I can be elected leader in the next elections (This is also true with many of the vet players here)

I would have to disagree with you on that point. I beleve that deputies should be the runner up in the elections. IMO, deputies are the esential part of the demogame since they are the assistants to aspiering leaders. I personaly like the "deputy runner up from the elections" because I can work with the leader and better refine my skills so that I can be elected leader in the next elections (This is also true with many of the vet players here)
sadly, the deputy position does not educate you in the slightest. The only thing that you learn is that its a wasted position and that you need to get your name out to win the next election rather than work as someone who will never get noticed. I was dep for a time in Term 1, and I didnt learn a damn thing. Only by getting my strategic and tactical abilities known was I able to be Min. of Def. for Terms 2&3.

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I am also against any proposals that would allow anyone other than the DP to make binding decisions during a game play session.

Finally, can we have a nice small, generally worded constitution that is easy to understand?
Im curious to see you write up a constitution, Donsig. I think you made 50+ Judicial reviews saying there was something wrong with the constitution. Perhaps you shoul write a constitution up so that "everything can be set right." What do you think?

Im curious to see you write up a constitution, Donsig. I think you made 50+ Judicial reviews saying there was something wrong with the constitution. Perhaps you shoul write a constitution up so that "everything can be set right." What do you think?

The demogame constitution was rewritten back in DG1 and refined along the way both during and between the subsequent demogames. I have been a part of that process since DG1. There is no need for me to write a new constitution, all we have to do is use the latest version sans the Code of Laws and Code of Standards.

The one change I would make would be the elimination of Article K. ;)

By the way, I do recall making many, many posts pointing out the flaws in the CoL and CoS but don't think I've posted that the constitution itself is flawed. I am quite proud of the evolution of our constitution to this point and have spent alot of time trying to uphold it.

I agree with Donsig in spirit, and Chieftess as well, less not more is best. We should return to the roots in demogame 1's rules, and elimiate all unnecessary pieces, generalized rules rather than the specifics and legal nightmare of the CoS and CoL

The demogame constitution was rewritten back in DG1 and refined along the way both during and between the subsequent demogames. I have been a part of that process since DG1. There is no need for me to write a new constitution, all we have to do is use the latest version sans the Code of Laws and Code of Standards.

The one change I would make would be the elimination of Article K. ;)

By the way, I do recall making many, many posts pointing out the flaws in the CoL and CoS but don't think I've posted that the constitution itself is flawed. I am quite proud of the evolution of our constitution to this point and have spent alot of time trying to uphold it.
Good enough for me, I see your point on this. My axe will stay in my belt and Ill just watch and see where this leads.

sadly, the deputy position does not educate you in the slightest. The only thing that you learn is that its a wasted position and that you need to get your name out to win the next election rather than work as someone who will never get noticed. I was dep for a time in Term 1, and I didnt learn a damn thing. Only by getting my strategic and tactical abilities known was I able to be Min. of Def. for Terms 2&3.
Well, that came from different experiances. I guess things were different back in Demogame 1-2.

Well, that came from different experiances. I guess things were different back in Demogame 1-2.
apparently they did. My strategic abilities came off of my own experiences. The only way one can get experience at the office is to have a mandatory TC that the Deputys posted the instructions instead of the ministers. But this event would likely be a disaster as well. Why the hell do we have deputies if they dont know what to do?

Notice that this gets ignored?

The Election Office is de facto run by CG and Boots. There are no rules. There are no checks.

There have been, and probably will continue to be problems with communication, timeliness, dismissing valid feedback/criticism and ignoring rules.

This is usually from only one person.

-- Ravensfire
How do you suggest we be checked? How should elections be run? I personally wouldn't be opposed to the dissolution of the Election Office if a better system of managing the elections is determined.

Regarding deputies, excepting a few cases, they're rather useless anyway. Our current system of appointment by the leader with a possibility for a refusal poll (only happened once I believe) is fine by me.

As for the ruleset as a whole, I think we should reduce its size somewhat, but not too far. The barely existant ruleset of DG3 caused problems with its lack of rules as well. We should steer for a middle ground here, perhaps a two-tiered ruleset with some of DG4's rules incorporated, and we can take from the other rulesets as well where we find rules that work better. I do not think that we should start with only a threadbare constitution; by the time we pass a constitution like that I would hope that a CoL is being worked on to add to it.

Still haven't seen a decent constitutional proposal in this thread.

Deputies should not be the runner up from the election unless the department head specifically appoints that person. Keep in mind folks that if you elect a decent leader that does his or her job then he or she won't really need a deputy and the point becomes moot.

I've got a wacky idea. How about discontinuing deputies altogether? If we have an AWOL leader, we can have the VP step in to give instructions.

The VP position has always been lamented as ceremonial as best, so let's give the role some teeth. We could also include that the DP has free reign over any area where instructions are not given.

With this setup in mind, we would need to provide strict penalties for not posting instructions. First time: warning in departmental thread. Second Time: Vote of No Confidence Third Time(if VoNC fails): Immediate Impeachment.


Just some ideas I had. I am not sure if any of them are workable. :)

How do you suggest we be checked? How should elections be run? I personally wouldn't be opposed to the dissolution of the Election Office if a better system of managing the elections is determined.

Regarding deputies, excepting a few cases, they're rather useless anyway. Our current system of appointment by the leader with a possibility for a refusal poll (only happened once I believe) is fine by me.

As for the ruleset as a whole, I think we should reduce its size somewhat, but not too far. The barely existant ruleset of DG3 caused problems with its lack of rules as well. We should steer for a middle ground here, perhaps a two-tiered ruleset with some of DG4's rules incorporated, and we can take from the other rulesets as well where we find rules that work better. I do not think that we should start with only a threadbare constitution; by the time we pass a constitution like that I would hope that a CoL is being worked on to add to it.

Boots, RE the Election Office - it is an office with zero controls on it. It's actions during the first part of DG4 were less than satisfactory.

Proposal One: Eliminate the EO. All threads created by the CJ.

Proposal Two: Keep the EO seperate from the game (current system). A charter is created, detailing membership and responsibilities. A means of determining "leadership" is determined. This charter is approved by vote of Citizens

Proposal Three: Make the EO a citizen's office under guidance from Judiciary. By a majority vote, the Judiciary can remove any citizen from the EO for cause.

How many terms did we have nomination tracker threads? Very few. The EO has turned into an extremely passive office when it used to be more active.

As it currently stands, the EO is a stand-alone office, seperate from everything else with minimal controls and no responsibility to the citizens.

Personally, I choose option 3.

-- Ravensfire

We could also include that the DP has free reign over any area where instructions are not given.


The DP has always had authority to make decisions when no instructions are posted and that is the way it should be. ( Hmmm, isn't that how the Great Aztec War started in DG3? :satan: )

I say we keep the deputies and dissolve the EO in favor of the judicial. I'm also fine with proposal three.

On Deputies,

I ask everyone to consider what practical value they add to the game. I stress practical, because the dream and desire is often different from reality.

The proposal to simply remove deputies is an intriging one to me. From what I can see, deputies offer one practical value, should the office be declared vacant, the deputy can take over.

That's it. The only benefit. Posting instructions when gone? Not reliably - that was shown in DG2/3/4. Posting instructions when none are posted - get real. Never happened. Education - oh my, that's a good laugh!

If, as I believe, deputies offer only the advantage to assume a vacant office, can that be done in another way? Would having the President appoint a willing citizen be sufficient?

-- Ravensfire

Raven:

Back in DG 3 I was simultaneously Deputy Domestic, Deputy Military, Deputy trade, Deputy FA (I can't remember exactly), Governor and Mayor. Back in those days advice could be given in the Turnchat and with the absence of the leaders I was deputy to, I was really busy in the TC's assisting our president (Bootstoots). The deputy position did have added value.

In DG 4 it was not allowed to instruct in the TC or edit instructions, thus the role of the deputy shriveled to a ceremonial suitcase-bearer for the office-holder.

There is talk of re-allowing, in certain circumstances, instuctions in the TC. Let's finish that discussion before we continue the "are deputies have any practical use?" topic.

I've got a wacky idea. How about discontinuing deputies altogether? If we have an AWOL leader, we can have the VP step in to give instructions.



I like that idea.

I feel that if we need an "election office" then that oversight should actually be provided by the Mods, so that we can avoid having legal tussles over the question of the judiciary being able to rule on the validity of their own election.

I like that idea.
I personaly hate the idea of desolving/removing deputies

I feel that if we need an "election office" then that oversight should actually be provided by the Mods, so that we can avoid having legal tussles over the question of the judiciary being able to rule on the validity of their own election.Overseeing is what the mods (are supposed to) do anyway, so why not use it in-game in this way. I'm only a newbie mod and don't know yet the heavyness and possibilities of the task, but I think this is wise.

Overseeing is what the mods (are supposed to) do anyway, so why not use it in-game in this way. I'm only a newbie mod and don't know yet the heavyness and possibilities of the task, but I think this is wise.
Thaat might make the mods a power in thhis game, kind of an elite among the elite(veterans) of this game. That might not bode well...

Well....why not the Judicial, with they're election overseen by the mods? That way, we can get rid of them if they're causing trouble. Unfortunately, it would probably cause lots of bickering and partisanship, but thats always interesting. :p

Well....why not the Judicial, with they're election overseen by the mods? That way, we can get rid of them if they're causing trouble. Unfortunately, it would probably cause lots of bickering and partisanship, but thats always interesting. :p
I'm sure you'd get tired of it pretty quickly. :p

Re: Election Office. In the early demogames the moderators posted the nomination and election threads and we had no problems.

Re: Deputies. Eliminating them is fine so long as you all don't get hung up and/or freak out when a leader goes AWOL and no instructions are posted. I am against removing people from office (other than by not re-electing them). I'm also against stopping play because someone didn't post an instruction. If you're all willing to let the DP (and the I mean the DP and not those at the chat) make decisions in the absence of posted instructions then by all means dispense with deputies. You will need a mechanism for replacing those who resign.

Thaat might make the mods a power in thhis game, kind of an elite among the elite(veterans) of this game. That might not bode well...What are you afraid of ? That the mods change elections the way they want to ?
How I see the mods overseeing the election office is that on the correct date and time (as described in the CoL) the nominations threads are posted, a nomination tracker is created and elections start. I fail to see how this is making it a power.

In hindsight we should have frozen term 1 and restarted in February after the holes in the rules were taken care of.

Overseeing the election should be is it on time, with the correct procedures followed, and the winners are who the rules say they should be. If someone claims tampering then check the info visible to mods only. This does not represent a problem for me, seems like the best way to be sure we're on track if any questions come up.

I disagree with that. It shouldn't take 2 months to create rules. That is why 25% of the people who were here in December left. The demogame should really be much more simple that we make it out to be.

- X number of advisors, with nominations, and elections every month.
- Largest vote winner wins.
- Post advisor threads and start discussions, and polls.
- Post instructions in the turnchat thread, and have regular turnchats.

The problem DG4 had was trying to micromanage the above 4 basic steps. This is why the demogame should have a "backbone ruleset" of generic rules, which would be about 1/3 the total ruleset, and with a line stating that, if any legal disputes aren't solved in say, 3 weeks, a 3rd party (usually a mod) can step in. One thing I'm saying right now as a mod - Do *NOT* micromanage the turnchat! Reason? The game moves slowly when you do. Users lose interest quickly. Participation drops, and you wonder why no one discusses anything.

I personaly hate the idea of desolving/removing deputies
they are virtually useless anyway, why have them? only when they are completely competent and good are they useful, and those people are almost always in a minister position instead due to their skill.

they are virtually useless anyway, why have them? only when they are completely competent and good are they useful, and those people are almost always in a minister position instead due to their skill.
Deputies are not useless. They have been useful in the past demogames. The reason you see that they are useless is because of the "Dont change the TC Instruction" rule. I would personaly would like to see the "Dont change the TC Instruction" rule to have the deputies to have a pourpouse in the TC when something unexpected happens.
I personaly would wish to see that the Deputies should stay around since they would hand out instructions that they fit if something unexpected happens when a Leader is not present in the TC.

There are 2 discussions on this deputy-issue and the "get rid of deputies" needs to be held after the discussion "Do we want instructions during the TC?"

I, for one, think that instructions during a turnchat add a great deal of flexibility to the turnchats. Besides, it's less beuracracy because the leaders won't have to plan EVERYTHING beforehand.

I, for one, think that instructions during a turnchat add a great deal of flexibility to the turnchats. Besides, it's less beuracracy because the leaders won't have to plan EVERYTHING beforehand.

Someday you will all realize two things:

1) Leaders are not supposed to be planning ANYTHING, we all are suppsed to be planning EVERYTHING. The leaders are simply those we have chosen (via our elections) to document our collective decisions in the game play instruction thread.

2) It is not a big hairy deal if we don't play a perfect Civ III game. So what if the slider settings aren't maximized. Who really cares if a city isn't maximizing it's potential or isn't building the most desirable thing?

We have elected too many people in these games who think their job is to run our country for us, rather than to run our country the way we ask it to be run. It is that mentality that is driving participation down and nothing else. Those with this mentality do not even need to be elected if we allow instructions to be given during the game play sessions. All they have to do is show up at the chat and *micromanage* as CT calls it. They can point out *flaws* in the posted instructions and get them changed by sweet talk or coercion. Let's stick to making decisions in the forums, where we can all contribute, and leave decisin making out of the chats.

BTW, you can now have public polls in the forum. So, that means that all election polls must be public if we choose to do that. There was discussion on it, and apparently, it's a vbulletin feature.

BTW, you can now have public polls in the forum. So, that means that all election polls must be public if we choose to do that. There was discussion on it, and apparently, it's a vbulletin feature.

I am against public election polls, and will fight it at every turn. It will cause nothing but trouble. If there is some controversy with an election result, then the mods can get TF to check it out(or maybe they can check it themselves now.....?).

Picture this: a candidate is losing in the polls, so he clicks on the results in progress and then has solid info of who has already been to the polling booth. The candidate can then PM anyone who hasn't yet voted to support his cause. I really don't want this happening, do you?

Secondly, this idea flies in the face of a citizens right to vote privately. It is one thing to publicly announce your choice in the election thread(as many do); it is quite another to have your vote unveiled to all against your wishes.

At this point, the citizenry is almost evenly divided on this matter, but mark my words: adopting public election polls will be a big mistake. Let's put alot of thought into it before we go down that path.

On the plus side, I do like the idea of public polls for votes on policy(war votes, build queues etc) because it establishes a public voting record for all prospective candidates.

What say you, Fanatica?

I am against public election polls, and will fight it at every turn. It will cause nothing but trouble. I will be with you during that fight ;)

Me too; No public elections.

prolly not public elections, but I think other polls should have public elections

I support the secret ballot.

And the changes in turnchats.

I think public elections would be good. While there are pitfalls (as already pointed out by others) there are benefits as well. For one thing we'd know whether citizens or outsiders are voting. For another we could be confident in the results and wouldn't have to worry about someone rigging an election.

Speaking of elections, I was thinking about what if the leading vote getter had, say, 1/3 (33.33%) or fewer votes. It's an extreme minority, so we could add a clause that says, "In the case of an "inconclusive minority winner", the winner, and runner up will have a 1-day run-off". Same for polls. That way, we can clearly see who the people want. It could happen if say, there's 4 canidates running for an office, and the results are 33%, 30%, 30%, 7%. (granted, that's a tie, so the top 3 would be repolled).

I think public elections would be good. While there are pitfalls (as already pointed out by others) there are benefits as well. For one thing we'd know whether citizens or outsiders are voting. For another we could be confident in the results and wouldn't have to worry about someone rigging an election.

donsig, we don't have to worry about that now. All someone needs to do is report suspicious poll activity to a mod, and that poll can be investigated by TF. TF's report would show all citizens that voted, as well as the option they chose. To me, this is more than suffiicient and should only be needed in certain rare cases.

Speaking of elections, I was thinking about what if the leading vote getter had, say, 1/3 (33.33%) or fewer votes. It's an extreme minority, so we could add a clause that says, "In the case of an "inconclusive minority winner", the winner, and runner up will have a 1-day run-off". Same for polls. That way, we can clearly see who the people want. It could happen if say, there's 4 canidates running for an office, and the results are 33%, 30%, 30%, 7%. (granted, that's a tie, so the top 3 would be repolled).

If DG4 is any indication, we shouldn't have to worry about that after Term 1. :lol:

But seriously, I am not sure if that is necessary. We are having a similar discussion in the C3C ISDG, and I believe that the results of the general election should stand. To have a run-off for anything other than a tie would not only be unfair to the winner of the first election, it would also be unfair to those who selected that candidate as their first choice.

If an election has 3+ contestants, I say Plurality Rules! ;)

donsig, we don't have to worry about that now. All someone needs to do is report suspicious poll activity to a mod, and that poll can be investigated by TF. TF's report would show all citizens that voted, as well as the option they chose. To me, this is more than suffiicient and should only be needed in certain rare cases.

OK. That was not available before. :)

Speaking of elections, I was thinking about what if the leading vote getter had, say, 1/3 (33.33%) or fewer votes. It's an extreme minority, so we could add a clause that says, "In the case of an "inconclusive minority winner", the winner, and runner up will have a 1-day run-off". Same for polls. That way, we can clearly see who the people want. It could happen if say, there's 4 canidates running for an office, and the results are 33%, 30%, 30%, 7%. (granted, that's a tie, so the top 3 would be repolled).

I thought you were spearheading the Backbone Rules Only Committee. CT. Why don't we just say the candidate with the most votes wins and only worry about run-offs if there is an actual tie for first place? Less rules = less muss and less fuss, right?

i think we should have it where leaders can change directions during a turnchat, but not deputies(if we have them)

i think we should have it where leaders can change directions during a turnchat, but not deputies(if we have them)

donsig, I'll let you field this one........ :lol:

I thought you were spearheading the Backbone Rules Only Committee. CT. Why don't we just say the candidate with the most votes wins and only worry about run-offs if there is an actual tie for first place? Less rules = less muss and less fuss, right?


For the first time, I actualy agree with Donsig regarding Elections and runner up elections :eek:. I beleve that we should just do a simple procedure on determaning the runner up rather than CT's complicated process.

The simplest way to determane the runner-up is (Oviously) whom ever gets the 2nd most votes.


i think we should have it where leaders can change directions during a turnchat, but not deputies(if we have them)


I would agree with you halfway to a point. I do agree that we should have leaders change instructions during the turnchat If he/she is present in the chat. I would disagree with you on not letting the deputies change the instructions when a leader is not present in the chat.

For the first time, I actualy agree with Donsig regarding Elections and runner up elections :eek:. I beleve that we should just do a simple procedure on determaning the runner up rather than CT's complicated process.

The simplest way to determane the runner-up is (Oviously) whom ever gets the 2nd most votes.



I would agree with you halfway to a point. I do agree that we should have leaders change instructions during the turnchat If he/she is present in the chat. I would disagree with you on not letting the deputies change the instructions when a leader is not present in the chat.

well then a deputy can basically void a leader's posted instructions

*awaiting donsig's thrashing*

well then a deputy can basically void a leader's posted instructions

But what if we included a clause saying that the deputy can only change instructions if the DP asks them for input?

But what if we included a clause saying that the deputy can only change instructions if the DP asks them for input?
that would work or the deputy could give instrcutions the leader missed

I've said a lot in the past about instructions during turnchats. I started to summarize and it came out the whole thing again. Guess I'll just try the full treatment again... :D

1. Participating in the TC, asking the DP questions, and tossing out ideas, reminders, etc. is fun, at least if you like chat to begin with. Lack of fun is what drove people away. If chat participation increases fun, and fun increases participation, then chat participation is good. The one or two people who don't like the chat to be fun can pack up their marbles and go home.

2. DP is a lonely and dangerous job. Everyone's eyes are on you, and you hit a point where there are two (or several!) actions which make sense, and either there are no instructions or the instructions are vague. I for one would want to be able to hold a vote, and make the decision in chat a group decision, instead of getting hung out to dry by making a personal decision.

3. Sure, a chat can be dominated by people who are against the views of someone from the forum. It is a choice to attend or not attend the chat. If you're worried about the chat taking away your rights, then attend it and make your voice heard.

4. A group decision is always preferable to an individual decision, in a demogame context. When the DP is not allowed to take advice, this makes in-game decisions individual decisions. When the DP is allowed to take advice, this makes in-game decisions group decisions.

5. People have mentioned history where there were 2 people in chat, and the spot vote was 1-0-0 in favor of an action, this giving the DP and one good friend unlimited power. This is history -- if we are worried about that specific situation, then have rules relating to that situation.

6. I'm not after a perfect game of civ. I'm also totally against instructions which cannot be changed to account for changing game conditions.

7. Sure, the leaders are not supposed to be deciding on their own. Unfortunately most of the discussions get very few people contributing, if any at all. The terms I was governor, the only input was from the military dept asking for specific units, and from an egotistical fellow governor talking down to me about how inefficient the queues were. If you're worried about leaders deciding stuff on their own, then crank up your keyboard and tell us what to do.

Tried reading your post DaveShack but by the time I got to point 3 a couple blood vessels inside my brain popped.

Has it ever occurred to you that attending a chat is not always a fair choice? As a world wide community we have citizens living in vastly different time zones. We cannot hold a chat that is convenient for everyone to attend. Those who cannot attend a chat should not have their participation in the game taken away, should not have their voice diminished. We are stuck with Vanilla Civ so as not to exclude anyone. We should not then use the chat to exclude some.

As for the DP, he or she should be willing to make decisions or he or she shouldn't be DP.

DaveShack,

I accept some of you points, disagree on others, and have a different viewpoint on still more.

The decision to attend/not attend a t/c is not always a "choice", it's often defined by the schedule of the chat and other matters going on.

The issue with instructions has been a long and tiring one. There is a solution that very, very few people considered. Give the DP, explicitly, flexibility in the instructions.

It's not always perfect, and it won't cover everything, but if a leader posts some specific instructions, and gives the DP latitude to make minor changes as needed, or parameters within which the DP can act, where's the problem?

Too many people looked at the changes, and thought that all instructions had to be detailed to the nth degree. There is nothing wrong with a leader giving the DP flexibility.

And finally, once again, people are determined to shove through the idea that people at the chat are more important than those at the forums. Fine - run the entire game in the chat. What's the purpose of the forums anyway? To give the masses a small piece of bread? "Here, have a crumb, vote in this poll that we'll override later in your best interests."

Depressing.

-- Ravensfire

Has it ever occurred to you that attending a chat is not always a fair choice? As a world wide community we have citizens living in vastly different time zones. We cannot hold a chat that is convenient for everyone to attend.

OK, that's a good point. Most of the DG4 chats were at times which were very inconvenient for me. That didn't keep me from attending some of them.


Those who cannot attend a chat should not have their participation in the game taken away, should not have their voice diminished. We are stuck with Vanilla Civ so as not to exclude anyone. We should not then use the chat to exclude some.


Participation is not taken away, and voices are not diminished, by having matters undecided in the forums handled during the chat, or by having minor changes made. Should the forum instruction to pop the hut in term 1 have been reversible? I propose that it should be. Should a forum instruction for no war, supported by a majority of citizens, be overturned by a decision to declare war in the chat? Definitely not! The point is not to diminish anyone's voice, it is to allow middle ground that makes sense, and fight against extremists on both sides. :)

Tried reading your post DaveShack but by the time I got to point 3 a couple blood vessels inside my brain popped.

Has it ever occurred to you that attending a chat is not always a fair choice? As a world wide community we have citizens living in vastly different time zones. We cannot hold a chat that is convenient for everyone to attend. Those who cannot attend a chat should not have their participation in the game taken away, should not have their voice diminished. We are stuck with Vanilla Civ so as not to exclude anyone. We should not then use the chat to exclude some.

As for the DP, he or she should be willing to make decisions or he or she shouldn't be DP.

As always, I will lend my support of a position that donsig and I have always shared. :D

The issue with instructions has been a long and tiring one. There is a solution that very, very few people considered. Give the DP, explicitly, flexibility in the instructions.

It's not always perfect, and it won't cover everything, but if a leader posts some specific instructions, and gives the DP latitude to make minor changes as needed, or parameters within which the DP can act, where's the problem?

Too many people looked at the changes, and thought that all instructions had to be detailed to the nth degree. There is nothing wrong with a leader giving the DP flexibility.

I'd actually be fine with this idea. The issue is with how we define what the DP has flexibility to change and what cannot be changed. This whole subject is a symptom of people who take the game too seriously, since it takes a leader who gets offended by his/her instructions being changed to make it an issue in the first place. I for one would not CC someone for not following my instructions, if the change makes sense in-game and it is clear that it's not an intentional act of disobediance. :)


And finally, once again, people are determined to shove through the idea that people at the chat are more important than those at the forums. Fine - run the entire game in the chat. What's the purpose of the forums anyway? To give the masses a small piece of bread? "Here, have a crumb, vote in this poll that we'll override later in your best interests."


NO, a thousand times NO. This is not about making the forums less important or the chat more important. The messages are

Things have changed and your perfectly reasonable idea two days ago is no longer reasonable. In the interest of moving forward a little ways, here is another idea which is reasonable.

We acknowledge that sometimes leaders can only get to their instructions (as decided by the people's input) partway into the chat, due to real life events. It is reasonable that the instructions should be heard instead of forcing the DP to proceed with no advice at all.


We already need to trust the DP to stop if things have changed so much that it requires additional discussion / voting. What if things have changed enough that the instruction is not valid or is less than optimal, why make the DP stop when the necessary change is obvious? Why make the DP continue when the instruction is clearly a mistake? Give a scenario where forum interests could actually be harmed, instead of just waving a flag.

3. Sure, a chat can be dominated by people who are against the views of someone from the forum. It is a choice to attend or not attend the chat. If you're worried about the chat taking away your rights, then attend it and make your voice heard.

Tears are streaming down my eyes right now so I'll do my best.

I work during the day, I leave for work at 6:35 every morning, I get home at 4:30 every evening, mountain time of course. I do not have the luxury of attending turn chats, I did, I don't anymore. SImple as that. You cannot impede on my rights as a leader to interdict my orders, which I am allowed to give by virtue of my position as an elected official. You also cannot invalidate my vote in a forum poll by using a clique of people in that turnchat to overrun even the slightest order. If the DP chooses to do this, different story, as I personally think the DP should be allowed to make these minor choices, such as popping the hut in your example. But not declare war, or p[op rush something.

Help! I am totally lost here!? :( :( :(
Please someone be patient and read my post :( :( :(


** moderators please move this message if this post is on wrong place **

Here are my steps in my quest for knowing what Demo Game is?

...Game of Democracy - 05. Panic. Am I late? What are the first four. Are these the turn numbers of this game or ...?

...I look at the thread Sign in as citizen - oh, ok I think to myself, this is where I register myself for this game. But it says something like "what position do I want?" I don't even know how the game looks like! where's the map of the world? what are these provinces? the constitution? who has the right to be what?

... at this point i use the search button and type in "What is Game of Democracy". it pops out several links, I pick with the same Title as my question... I notice that this thread is in the Archives, but looks useful... I find out something about three books which I have to read... but the links to these books are broken...

... I return to the Civ 3 forum main index and I find the following forum directories:
- Game of Democracy IV
- Demo game IV: Citizens
- Demo game IV: Governments
- Demo game IV: Polls
... even more confused. Is the "Game of democracy" the same thing as "Demo game" or is a "Demo game" some forum where noobs to civ can learn how to play civ3 by playing a game together?

... i click "game of democracy IV" and see the same directories as in root (citizens, government, polls). really confused now ... oh, i notice a sticky ... those same three books of laws ...

... i follow this link and finally find some useful info. So this is a mass on-line game where registered Demo Game members are actually "citizens" of some real civ3 game runned by one person on decisions by these citizens. okay. got it. ... it also says I have to apply for citizenship. ... but it says something about chat? i don't have time to chat real time during night... I'm in europe! Is this real-time chat or forum posts?...

... i return to the forum and click the "citizen registry" thread. Go to last page (as always :) )... oh no! it says "people stop applying, the 04 game is over!".

.. in the meantime i opened several other windows with posts and found out the following:
- the savegame can actually be downloaded and viewed
- citizens may apply for any position at beginning (but I still don't know how this works)
- there are some maps/screenshots of game
- the game 04 is over and 05 is starting sometime in future
- "Demo Game" and "Game of Democracy" are the same thing

... I open this thread and move to the last post with the Immortal in tears (which I found out was president in the last few games) ** congrates here Immortal! :) :) **

All in all, from the scrap of information I found out in the last hour, i know only the following:
I like the idea of being a member of a mass on-line discussed CIV3 game and all I want is to be a cultural figure in a nice, warm, coastal city somewhere near the capital of our empire. Help me to do it, please...

EDIT: What I really wanted to say is that the Demo game forum is really messed up. I started to play the GOTM a few days ago. Its really nicely done like "Read this if you are first time here" etc... I got the game running in half an hour... I'd really really really really like to play the Demo game, but I'm very confused. :blush:

BR,
Bibor

Help! I am totally lost here!? :( :( :(
Please someone be patient and read my post Sure! :)

...Game of Democracy - 05. Panic. Am I late? What are the first four. Are these the turn numbers of this game or ...? Demogame 5 is the upcoming 5th version of the demogame, this one just ended as of this week, with a conquest victory for us.

...I look at the thread Sign in as citizen - oh, ok I think to myself, this is where I register myself for this game. But it says something like "what position do I want?" I don't even know how the game looks like! where's the map of the world? what are these provinces? the constitution? who has the right to be what? Citizen registry: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=77398
Screenshots: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=76743
Provinces are what the nation is split up into, each one has a number of cities whose build queues are determined by elected officials, as well as the elected council which is above the governors of the provinces. Rights to be things are derived from elections.

... at this point i use the search button and type in "What is Game of Democracy". it pops out several links, I pick with the same Title as my question... I notice that this thread is in the Archives, but looks useful... I find out something about three books which I have to read... but the links to these books are broken... Hey I wrote that!!! :) a long time ago mind you, I figure Ill make a new one for the demogame 5 when everything is sorted out. RIght now we are debating the rules for the next game, votes for the world and playing civ can be done in the polls sub-forum.

ruleset: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=70898 Its overly long and complicated in my opinion, hopefully it wil be reduced for the upcoming 5th game.

... I return to the Civ 3 forum main index and I find the following forum directories:
- Game of Democracy IV
- Demo game IV: Citizens
- Demo game IV: Governments
- Demo game IV: Polls
... even more confused. Is the "Game of democracy" the same thing as "Demo game" or is a "Demo game" some forum where noobs to civ can learn how to play civ3 by playing a game together? the subforums are pretty self explainatory, its where stuff goes, citizens is mostly for discussions. Game of Democracy is the same as the demogame.


but it says something about chat? i don't have time to chat real time during night... I'm in europe! Is this real-time chat or forum posts?... the chat is a debatable advantage or disadvantage to the game, in the chatroom, I cant go since I work during the day. Its real time, but in a perfect world the chat wouldnt be needed as all instructions could be decided by the citizens in the forums beforehand.

- citizens may apply for any position at beginning (but I still don't know how this works) Thats really more of an aspiring positions thing, nominations before elections is how you get to be a leader of a section,"domestic, trade, foreign etc :) )

... I open this thread and move to the last post with the Immortal in tears (which I found out was president in the last few games) ** congrates here Immortal! :) :) ** Nice of you to say, but I was not the pres, I was the senior councilmember once, as well as a couple council positions spread out over a few games.

Help me to do it, please... Patience young grasshopper :)

EDIT: What I really wanted to say is that the Demo game forum is really messed up. I started to play the GOTM a few days ago. Its really nicely done like "Read this if you are first time here" etc... I got the game running in half an hour... I'd really really really really like to play the Demo game, but I'm very confused. :blush:
Dont blush! there should have been a better description of the overly complicated game we've put together here. Be patient, and I have a feeling that your opinions could really help out the next game, since your newer to the forum and brand new to the game. If we could make it a little more coheran, it would be easier to figure out, dont feel bad, its probably us long time players faults for making it too complicated for newer people like yourself.

Any other questions, give me, or someone else a private message, Ill answer them for ya!

How about this? We give the citizens at the chat one power: ending the chat. Make it that if 2/3 of the citizenry votes to stop the chat, the chat stops and returns to the forum. Any objections?

EDIT: Or we make a list of situations where the chat MUST be halted.

How about this? We give the citizens at the chat one power: ending the chat. Make it that if 2/3 of the citizenry votes to stop the chat, the chat stops and returns to the forum. Any objections?

EDIT: Or we make a list of situations where the chat MUST be halted.

I object! Why should we give a handful of citizens (who just happen to be able to attend a chat) this power? We elect a President to play the save. What is wrong with letting him or her make the decision on when it is appropriate to stop play?

Let the chat attendees have their fun socializing at the chat but please, please let them be heard through the forums like the rest of us.

Bibor: You're post has made me jump into action. I've made a thread called I am new here. The game of Democracy (DEMOGAME) sounds fun. What do I do ? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91345)

If you want anymore posted in there, if anything is still unclear; please inform me.

Ill write a "what is the democracy game" thread for game 5 when everything comes together.

Now, back on topic!

I object! Why should we give a handful of citizens (who just happen to be able to attend a chat) this power? We elect a President to play the save. What is wrong with letting him or her make the decision on when it is appropriate to stop play?

I could use generalities to give examples, or I could cite one in particular. Which would you prefer?

I felt the naming process was lacking, so I came up with a new one, and that lead into me coming up with a whole new proposal to have the ministers go with the game advisors, but have subministers where necessary. The comptroller, culture, and domestic ministers both have positions that require them to negociate with multiple people to decide things (such as worker use).

Proposed Department Layout

Minister of Internal Affairs (D)-Controls workers, but is advised by governors, other ministers on their use
Comptroller (D)-Negociates slider settings between Technology and Culture
Governors (D)-Handle city queues within province
Mayors (D)-Advise governors?
Minister of Defence (D)-Controls military units, planning
Minister of Trade (D)-Governs resource use, trade
Minister of Foreign Affairs (D)-Relations with other nations
Minister of Technology (D)-Controls science research
Minister of Culture (D)-Monitors city happiness, wonders, names cities

Proposed City Naming Process:

The Minister of Culture is to name each city on an individual basis when they are built. He can and should take requests from citizens for names. This would make city names more logical (culturally and geographically), as well as giving him something to do. If a city is founded that was not anticipated by the minister, it is to go by the default name until it may be changed next chat.

How about this? We give the citizens at the chat one power: ending the chat. Make it that if 2/3 of the citizenry votes to stop the chat, the chat stops and returns to the forum. Any objections?

EDIT: Or we make a list of situations where the chat MUST be halted.

I actually like that idea. At most, all they can do is send a decision back to the forums where everyone can participate.

I actually like that idea. At most, all they can do is send a decision back to the forums where everyone can participate.

Huzzah! Support!

I felt the naming process was lacking, so I came up with a new one, and that lead into me coming up with a whole new proposal to have the ministers go with the game advisors, but have subministers where necessary. The comptroller, culture, and domestic ministers both have positions that require them to negociate with multiple people to decide things (such as worker use).

Proposed Department Layout

Minister of Internal Affairs (D)-Controls workers, but is advised by governors, other ministers on their use
Comptroller (D)-Negociates slider settings between Technology and Culture
Governors (D)-Handle city queues within province
Mayors (D)-Advise governors?
Minister of Defence (D)-Controls military units, planning
Minister of Trade (D)-Governs resource use, trade
Minister of Foreign Affairs (D)-Relations with other nations
Minister of Technology (D)-Controls science research
Minister of Culture (D)-Monitors city happiness, wonders, names cities

Proposed City Naming Process:

The Minister of Culture is to name each city on an individual basis when they are built. He can and should take requests from citizens for names. This would make city names more logical (culturally and geographically), as well as giving him something to do. If a city is founded that was not anticipated by the minister, it is to go by the default name until it may be changed next chat.

ill say this again:
i believe the dp should have full control of workers,
you have no idea how hard it is in the late game to give and follow instructions for 200 workers

Maybe the MIA could just give general instructions late in the game.

Since this is CIV (quote from my friend), IMHO the Minister of Defence should be renamed "Minister of War".

BIbor

I felt the naming process was lacking, so I came up with a new one, and that lead into me coming up with a whole new proposal to have the ministers go with the game advisors, but have subministers where necessary. The comptroller, culture, and domestic ministers both have positions that require them to negociate with multiple people to decide things (such as worker use).

Proposed Department Layout

Minister of Internal Affairs (D)-Controls workers, but is advised by governors, other ministers on their use
Comptroller (D)-Negociates slider settings between Technology and Culture
Governors (D)-Handle city queues within province
Mayors (D)-Advise governors?
Minister of Defence (D)-Controls military units, planning
Minister of Trade (D)-Governs resource use, trade
Minister of Foreign Affairs (D)-Relations with other nations
Minister of Technology (D)-Controls science research
Minister of Culture (D)-Monitors city happiness, wonders, names cities

Proposed City Naming Process:

The Minister of Culture is to name each city on an individual basis when they are built. He can and should take requests from citizens for names. This would make city names more logical (culturally and geographically), as well as giving him something to do. If a city is founded that was not anticipated by the minister, it is to go by the default name until it may be changed next chat.

I could use generalities to give examples, or I could cite one in particular. Which would you prefer?

I'm sure I can refute either. :)

Alrighty then. Suppose that the DP goes crazy and plays. And plays. And keeps on playing. As long as the action was documented in some way, this could actually happen, according to our current laws. Now can't we agree that this would be a Bad Thing? And aren't Bad Things, well, bad? Do we want Bad Things?

For specifics I turn, of course, to the first chat of DG3, Term 3. After declaring war on the Aztecs, you refused to stop the turnchat and return to the forums to discuss the execution of the war. Now, I would say that wars need to be at least planned for. The planning should almost certainly be done with the input of the people, not by one person alone.

if such a scenario occured noldodan, that is when a moderator steps in, and an impeachment is started.

if such a scenario occured noldodan, that is when a moderator steps in, and an impeachment is started.

Impeach them for what? We have no laws to cover such a situation.

Suppose that the DP goes crazy and plays. And plays. And keeps on playing. this sentence is what I was trying to reply to, I apologize for not making that clear.

Yes, I know Immortal. As it stands now, such a scenario is perfectly legal.

okay, if nothing of interest happens then the DP may as well continue to play, however once something of interest happens I think the DP should be obligated to discontinue the game (war, resource exhaustion etc). If the DP does not stop the game, I think there should be punishment for that, for not giving the citizens a chance to reply to such an action.

I was going to call it War, but since its seems we'll be playing as pacifists, I figured Defence would make more sense. I've also decided that the comptroller's job could just be given to the MoIA. As for workers, I think that towards the end the instructions could be, as Noldordan said, vague. If the job is too big, any particular advisor should be able to give relatively vague instructions, so the DP could figure out the rest, rather than having overly complex war, worker, etc plans.

Alrighty then. Suppose that the DP goes crazy and plays. And plays. And keeps on playing. As long as the action was documented in some way, this could actually happen, according to our current laws. Now can't we agree that this would be a Bad Thing? And aren't Bad Things, well, bad? Do we want Bad Things?

For specifics I turn, of course, to the first chat of DG3, Term 3. After declaring war on the Aztecs, you refused to stop the turnchat and return to the forums to discuss the execution of the war. Now, I would say that wars need to be at least planned for. The planning should almost certainly be done with the input of the people, not by one person alone.

First of all, the hypothetical scenario you describe could be prevented by making a specific rule limiting the number of turns that can be played per game play session. Such a rule can be easily made without resorting to a three tiered legal structure that is so cumbersome no one understands all its ramifications. Such a rule is also very much preferable to giving a handful of chat attendees power to stop game play just because something happens that they don't happen to like.

Secondly, as to your historical scenario, I'd like to make two points (again):

1) I did not declare war on the Aztecs, the Aztecs declared war on our country when I refused their demands to remove our troops from what I considered to be our territory.

2) I agree that wars should be planned for. I would go further and say that many, many other things in the demogame should be planned for. Such as, what do we do if these Aztec settlers squat and build a city on land we've already claimed? But what do we do when no one plans? Stop playing? Maybe that's what you'd have done in term three. I looked at the posts in the forum, based my decision on those and moved ahead. Unfortunately, it happened that those at the chat did not agree with what had been posted in the forums and proceeded to raise bloody heck - which still hasn't died down, judging by the fact that it is still brought up. ;) So, my point here is this: the decision that lead to the war was not unilateral but based on posts made in this thread concerning possible Aztec settlement. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57491) (BTW, I pointed out that very thread to YOU (Noldodan) when you asked how the war started. Perhaps now that tempers have subsided over this ( :lol: ) you will go back and read the thread.)

Anything else I need to refute (again)?

First of all, the hypothetical scenario you describe could be prevented by making a specific rule limiting the number of turns that can be played per game play session. Such a rule can be easily made without resorting to a three tiered legal structure that is so cumbersome no one understands all its ramifications. Such a rule is also very much preferable to giving a handful of chat attendees power to stop game play just because something happens that they don't happen to like.

Secondly, as to your historical scenario, I'd like to make two points (again):

1) I did not declare war on the Aztecs, the Aztecs declared war on our country when I refused their demands to remove our troops from what I considered to be our territory.

2) I agree that wars should be planned for. I would go further and say that many, many other things in the demogame should be planned for. Such as, what do we do if these Aztec settlers squat and build a city on land we've already claimed? But what do we do when no one plans? Stop playing? Maybe that's what you'd have done in term three. I looked at the posts in the forum, based my decision on those and moved ahead. Unfortunately, it happened that those at the chat did not agree with what had been posted in the forums and proceeded to raise bloody heck - which still hasn't died down, judging by the fact that it is still brought up. ;) So, my point here is this: the decision that lead to the war was not unilateral but based on posts made in this thread concerning possible Aztec settlement. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57491) (BTW, I pointed out that very thread to YOU (Noldodan) when you asked how the war started. Perhaps now that tempers have subsided over this ( :lol: ) you will go back and read the thread.)

Anything else I need to refute (again)?

Alrighty. In response to your first paragraph: Good idea. But I say we have that AND a method of stopping the chat in case something major happens. Now, as to your other points: You made the choice of whether or not the Aztecs would declare war on us. To me, that's as good as declaring the war yourself. As to why you declared it, I have stated (I know I did it somewhere, maybe in a chat) that I do not personally think the war decision was wrong. I do believe, however, that your subsequent actions in the chat were wrong, most of all continuing the chat.

Ive spent the last 2 days working with the three books, and Ive managed to condense them into a consititution about 3 pages on size 12 font, it still needs some work, it needs to be expanded on the forum outline and on the leader definition segments but I consider it rather coherant. It is 15 articles in size (two more than DG2? I cant remember). Once I organize it I can PM it to whoever wants a look.

Here is the most absolute bare minimum constitution/rule book I could write, it hasnt been proof-read fully so the grammer sucks, some sections are not complete as we havent decided upon what they will say, and the formatting is absolutely horrible. But the rules are there, allbeit in their barest forms.

Criticize my work!

Remember, always scan an attachment before opening it, and Im out for the rest of the night, so Ill see your replies tomorrow afternoon MAYBE! Depending on how much time my dad spends off the golf course tomorrow.

Immortal, our country may yet be either Fanatika or Phoentica, but certainly not both at once!

But on a serious note, there are several things in your proposal that have not yet been decided, and really need to. I spotted the following: Quorum, the method of passing new laws, Judicial structure, PI process, the election process, and how turn chats will be run. These things really need to be decided, whether here or in a CoL, before we discuss a final Constitution.

I told you I havent proof-read it fully!


Final? HA! I havent taken the time to finish writing it yet! :)

I told you I havent proof-read it fully!


Final? HA! I havent taken the time to finish writing it yet! :)
Heh, so thats why my MS Word kept on picking up Grammar and Spelling errors :p.

First of all, the hypothetical scenario you describe could be prevented by making a specific rule limiting the number of turns that can be played per game play session. Such a rule can be easily made without resorting to a three tiered legal structure that is so cumbersome no one understands all its ramifications. Such a rule is also very much preferable to giving a handful of chat attendees power to stop game play just because something happens that they don't happen to like.

Secondly, as to your historical scenario, I'd like to make two points (again):
[snip]
2) I agree that wars should be planned for. I would go further and say that many, many other things in the demogame should be planned for. Such as, what do we do if these Aztec settlers squat and build a city on land we've already claimed? But what do we do when no one plans? Stop playing?

Here's the big irony. You, of all people, are the last person who should be asking this question. I don't have time to look up references, but if memory serves, you're the biggest proponent of stopping play when something unplanned comes up, at least when discussing rules. You constantly say we don't need a rule which forces play to stop because we can trust the President / DP to do what is right. You're also the living proof that we can't rely on trust alone to stop play when it needs to be discussed in the forums. To restate the obvious, the real problem in DG3T3 was with continuing play after war was declared. Also it is pretty clear that instructions can be manipulated to get the result the DP wants, though manipulating instructions to start a war is the last thing I'd expect from one of our most prominent doves.

There are still 3 options we need to consider for unplanned conditions:


Rules which force play to stop
A means to democratically force play to stop during the chat.
Trust the DP to make the right decision.


I'm not willing to make the 3rd option be the only way to handle unplanned events. We must either have rules to stop play, or a mechanism to make it the decision of more than one person.

Here's the big irony. You, of all people, are the last person who should be asking this question. I don't have time to look up references, but if memory serves, you're the biggest proponent of stopping play when something unplanned comes up, at least when discussing rules. You constantly say we don't need a rule which forces play to stop because we can trust the President / DP to do what is right. You're also the living proof that we can't rely on trust alone to stop play when it needs to be discussed in the forums. To restate the obvious, the real problem in DG3T3 was with continuing play after war was declared. Also it is pretty clear that instructions can be manipulated to get the result the DP wants, though manipulating instructions to start a war is the last thing I'd expect from one of our most prominent doves.

There are still 3 options we need to consider for unplanned conditions:


Rules which force play to stop
A means to democratically force play to stop during the chat.
Trust the DP to make the right decision.


I'm not willing to make the 3rd option be the only way to handle unplanned events. We must either have rules to stop play, or a mechanism to make it the decision of more than one person.
:lol: Thats right donsig! :lol:

I completely agree with you Daveshack. We cannot have at any time a situation like DG3T3. Though I would join at DG3T6, I have heard enough about this situation to know what happened and I have read the threads about it. I know full well that is a situation we do not want to deal with ever again and we should take every countermeasure in order to make that so.

Here's the big irony. You, of all people, are the last person who should be asking this question. I don't have time to look up references, but if memory serves, you're the biggest proponent of stopping play when something unplanned comes up, at least when discussing rules.


Yes, I am a proponent of stopping play when something that is truly unexpected happens. Let me make my self clear on this part. I mean when something truly unexpected to the demogame community as a whole crops up - not when something happens that is not foreseen by those who happen to be at the chat. Someday, maybe many years from now - after some of us have matured a bit and can look back at the history of DG3 in a somewhat detached way, we will be able to see that the war with the Aztecs was not an unexpected thing. As pointed out earlier in this thread there was a thread started by the foreign minister asking for input on a possible war. Anyone paying attention to the game would have known that there was an Aztec settler we were trying to block and if said settler built a city we'd have units within the city radius which Monty might have demanded be withdrawn. This was not *minor details* that could have been easily overlooked. In fact it was not overlooked and the aforementioned thread showed support for a war. Once the war came there was no point in stopping play. This was not a scary war. We had just built a formidable army to deal with Egypt. It was routine.

The problem was that those who attended the chat regularly had gotten in the habit of voicing their opinions in the chat rather than in the forums. By not asking for their advice during the chats I pissed them off and that (or rather their reaction to that) was the problem with term three of DG3, not a DP who would not stop and take things to the forums. If something truly unexpected had occurred I would certainly have stopped play. I had fought hard for the DP's right to stop play in DG1. There just was no need to do so in DG3 term three.

So, once again, I suggest we let the DP use his or her discretion when it comes to stopping play. I would add a limit to the number of turns that could be played per chat but that's it. Elect a preseident and give him or her a chance to do the job. If they do not do it to your satisfaction then don't vote for them again. But don't give extra power to those who are lucky enough to attend the chats.

As for the three things on your list DaveShack, the trouble lies in defining what is unplanned. Is it something none of us thought of? Is it something some of us didn't think about? Is it something one of us (like a leader) didn't think of? What criteria would you use to define something as unplanned? Without knowing that I could not agree to any hard rules that force play to stop.

As for the three things on your list DaveShack, the trouble lies in defining what is unplanned. Is it something none of us thought of? Is it something some of us didn't think about? Is it something one of us (like a leader) didn't think of? What criteria would you use to define something as unplanned? Without knowing that I could not agree to any hard rules that force play to stop.

I'm arguing this point to try to point out the absurdity of not allowing trivial changes during the chat on the grounds that it "devoices" the people who are in the forums only. We have people crying about being disenfranchised by others "wielding power" during the chat, and the same people who advocate taking away all chat powers are also advocating other policies which disenfranchise forum goers, in an even worse way.

Example: FA Instructions say don't declare war. Military instructions have no war contingencies. Someone declares war on us -- this should require an immediate stoppage of play and return to the forum for discussion. We should not require our leaders to plan things both ways, with a peacetime and wartime plan for every chat. It doesn't matter how minor or trivial conduct of the war seems to be, to continue in this circumstance takes away the voices of the people in exactly the same way as the anti-chat movement consistently argues against as evidence against making trivial changes in chat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if we disallow the ability of more than one person to change directions, then we must disallow the ability of one person to make changes, and the DP should not be allowed to proceed if the game goes a different direction than the direction which was planned for.

I'm arguing this point to try to point out the absurdity of not allowing trivial changes during the chat on the grounds that it "devoices" the people who are in the forums only. We have people crying about being disenfranchised by others "wielding power" during the chat, and the same people who advocate taking away all chat powers are also advocating other policies which disenfranchise forum goers, in an even worse way.

Example: FA Instructions say don't declare war. Military instructions have no war contingencies. Someone declares war on us -- this should require an immediate stoppage of play and return to the forum for discussion. We should not require our leaders to plan things both ways, with a peacetime and wartime plan for every chat. It doesn't matter how minor or trivial conduct of the war seems to be, to continue in this circumstance takes away the voices of the people in exactly the same way as the anti-chat movement consistently argues against as evidence against making trivial changes in chat. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if we disallow the ability of more than one person to change directions, then we must disallow the ability of one person to make changes, and the DP should not be allowed to proceed if the game goes a different direction than the direction which was planned for.

Just who will decide what is or is not a trivial change? Seems to me that would have to be decided by someone at the chat, or am I missing something? BTW, if it's trivial why do we need to change it? If it's trivial why can't the DP just do what is in the posted instructions and move on?

As for your example, I do not agree that an unexpected declaration of war should force an immediate stoppage of play. Some wars in Civ III are truly trivial and there's no point in stopping play if we find ourselves in one of them. By allowing the DP to use his or her discretion whether to continue playing or not does not *devoice* anyone. We elected the DP collectively to make *some* decisions for us. Letting the DP do the DP's job is not the same as letting some people at the chat make changes to posted instructions.

I do agree with you that we should not allow the DP to make changes to posted instructions. Both Rik Meleet and Chieftess did that as DP. I requested a CC against RM and volunterred to act as prosecutor in the CC against CT. Unfortunately, our judiciary and citizens as a whole did not think these to be worthwhile. :(

Changing instructions is quite different from making a decision in the absence of instructions. I also agree that leaders should not be forced to plan for each and every possibility. They should however plan for those scenarios that are more than just unlikely possibilities. ;) In they event they don't, we elect a President to make decisions for us. Yes, by all means we want play stopped if a BIG and UNFORESEEN decision rears it head. But if the decision is trivial, or if the scenario has been discussed then let the DP do his or her job and play the game.

The increasingly personal tone of some of these posts is disruptive. You will stop even mentioning each other in your posts or disciplinary action will follow. This warning applies to DaveShack, donsig, and Sarevok particularly, but I suggest you all take heed of it.

This is really quite simple. Give me a rule which allows simple changes to posted instructions, preferably by the same leader who posted the wrong instruction or by a majority at the chat or by a standing rule about what can be changed, and I'll be happy. The instruction to pop the hut in DG4 T1 is an example of where this would be used. If there is anyone who honestly thinks popping that hut and thereby getting our warrior killed and capitol sacked was a good thing, I'll consider modifying my position on this part of the issue.

Give me a rule which forces play stoppage when there is reason to believe that some number of players might like to discuss current events in the forums (would 10% of the census be enough?), and I'll be happy. Leave the specific examples out of this, and stick with the general issue instead. In general practice, how much dissent during a discussion do we normally use as the cutoff point before a poll should be used? Even one comment, if a particularily relevant one, is sufficient to force most issues to a poll.

If I were in the position of DP and someone demands a stoppage because things have changed, I'm leaning towards pretty much always stopping. I don't care if I only get in 8 turns in a term, my focus is on a fun game for all, not to "make my mark" while in the driver's seat.

This is really quite simple. Give me a rule which allows simple changes to posted instructions, preferably by the same leader who posted the wrong instruction or by a majority at the chat or by a standing rule about what can be changed, and I'll be happy. The instruction to pop the hut in DG4 T1 is an example of where this would be used. If there is anyone who honestly thinks popping that hut and thereby getting our warrior killed and capitol sacked was a good thing, I'll consider modifying my position on this part of the issue.

If a leader can't get good instructions posted in the forum why should we assume he or she can give good instructions in the chat? By allowing leaders to post instructions in the game play instruction thread and then change them at will in the chat we undermine the whole idea behind the instruction thread. (That idea is that instructions are recorded ahead of time so we all have a chance to see them and have a good idea of what will take place in the game even if we cannot be at the chat.) By allowing changes to be made in the chat we risk a leader or leaders being bullied/coerced/talked into making changes they don't want. We also risk last minute polls like some of the ones we had back in DG1.

Popping the hut in term one was not a good thing. But it was not a devastating thing either. We won the game didn't we? So we made some mistakes along the way, like popping a hut (or not optimizing the sliders or the build queues). So what?

Everyone seems to remember the Aztec war of term 3, DG3. Who remembers us trying to build Copernicus' Observatory in Memphis that same term? We had it in our grasp but instructions were posted to change to a cathedral and then restart the wonder. As a citizen I disagreed with the plan. As DP I (reluctantly) followed the plan and someone beat us to Copernicus. Should I have been allowed to change (or convince the appropriate leader to change) that instruction? We would have gotten Copernicus built - but would we still have beeen able to (legitimately) call this a democracy game?

If I were in the position of DP and someone demands a stoppage because things have changed, I'm leaning towards pretty much always stopping. I don't care if I only get in 8 turns in a term, my focus is on a fun game for all, not to "make my mark" while in the driver's seat.

Rather than force a rule on the rest of us why don't you run for President? If you don't want to do that you can make apoint of asking those who do run how they would handle unexpected things at the chat and place your vote accordingly.

Given eyrei's earlier post I will refrain from replying to the "make my mark" part of your post.

BTW, I personally do not see what promted your warning eyrei.

If the President / DP sees something which needs to be changed, he/she can stop play and go back to the forum to allow it to be discussed. It's actually a little bit amazing that we haven't had any notable incidents of a DP who doesn't like an instruction so stops play to get clarification or time to get it changed.

Given that we have at least one individual with the power to force a play stoppage (the DP), the same ability should be given to everyone else. What can it possibly hurt to stop play and discuss something in the forums? Just because the person who is currently running the save doesn't want to stop, when potentially everyone else present does want to stop, we're forced to endure play continuing without discussion?

Sure, with a limit on the duration of sessions at 10 turns, we're protected a little bit, but what about things which change during the preturn of turn 0? If play continues, the point which needed discussion may already be history by the time the scheduled 10 turns are up.

It's possible to get a warning (or worse) by commenting on a warning, so I won't do that... :p

However I will repeat something I've said in the past in slightly different words. I may disagree vehemently with someone's position but that's as far as it ever goes -- and I'm just as likely to agree as not to agree with that person's position on another subject ;) Sorry if anyone saw it differently, and I haven't seen anything from others in this thread that I'd complain about, just healthy clean debate.

Rather than force a rule on the rest of us why don't you run for President?

I might just be leaning that direction. :cooool:

Hope people don't mind 22:30 to 00:30 Mountain Standard (Pacific Daylight, UTC-7) as a chat time, I have 2 children and work a 10 hour day on average, and this is the only 2 hours a day I have to play civ.

With the right VP and ruleset I'd probably be willing to alternate sessions, or even run split sessions -- plan for 10, play it in two 5 turn sets.

However, we need to compromise on some rules before anyone will be running for President, or any office for that matter. I've made several offers toward middle ground on stoppages (setting a quorum based on the current census for example) and would be willing to entertain limiting instruction changes to specific situations.

As a general comment, although we each may feel very strongly about one extreme or the other on particular issues, true democracy is best practiced by negotiating agreements toward the center. Everyone is encouraged to suggest a solution.

So, when's DGV gonna start? :confused:

So, when's DGV gonna start? :confused:
usually on the first of a month, so whenever we get everything done... im thinking August 1st or Sept. 1st

Im slightly confused by one thing: we say we dont want to give the DP powers to continue the turn chat when he/she sees fit to do so, yet those in the turn-chat should be allowed to force an end to the turnchat when they see fit.

Why are non-elected officials to be granted powers beyond our highest elected official?

Im slightly confused by one thing: we say we dont want to give the DP powers to continue the turn chat when he/she sees fit to do so, yet those in the turn-chat should be allowed to force an end to the turnchat when they see fit.

Why are non-elected officials to be granted powers beyond our highest elected official?

The answer is right in our Constitution. Elected officials must follow the will of the people.

the will of the chat room is not the will of the people.

the will of the chat room is not the will of the people.

Now that is a confuse point.

If we consider a spot vote the will of the people (given a certain quorum), it could be...

PS.: could we get the constitution finished and adopted A.S.A.P.? I mean, well, two months between games realy killed the beginning of DG3 (or four, or both, as you wish), and I fear that it's going to be the same now. If we can get the constitutionnal bickering settled now, we can get the laws (because we need some of these too) tuned. If we can do this in 2 weeks, we could try to get the elections on July 15th (could try an half term to get things running[with ad hoc legislation]).

Think about it, the sooner, the better.

I agree with Fire Canadien. DG4 realy laged in citizen partisipation due because we had such a lengthy time discussing rules which is a big turn off to many of the users.

another major problem is the long drawn out set of rules we had.

Speaking bluntly, our legal documents were grossly oversized, needlessly so. This is what is holding us up, talks have stalled, and something needs to be done. Yet I see few people doing anything about it. As noldodan said when I posted my outlined constitution, many things have not been agreed upon, and the snails pace we are working at is not helping anything. Someone needs to come forward, as I did, with what they believe is a good rule set, and others need to outline what changes should be done in it.

We are sitting right now with no constitution, nothing to work with, and no discussion.

OK, people...

We had several times in DG4 where the leader posted instructions, and then wanted to change them during the chat. The president, 100% of the people at the chat, and as far as I could tell 100% of the people in the forums thought the actual instructions should have been changed, from the in-game perspective. The only argument against changing the instructions was that the rules didn't allow it. All I'm trying to do is fix this problem, with the added benefit that the game will be more fun (for most). I'll admit there will be a few people who don't like it. I don't understand why, though I'm guessing it must be something historical.

Make an offer, anything away from the extreme position that the chat is nothing more than a diversion. Let those of us who are here to have fun, have fun. If you don't think the chat is fun then have fun in the game some other way, as long as taking away our fun is not the way you have fun.

OK, people...

We had several times in DG4 where the leader posted instructions, and then wanted to change them during the chat. The president, 100% of the people at the chat, and as far as I could tell 100% of the people in the forums thought the actual instructions should have been changed, from the in-game perspective. The only argument against changing the instructions was that the rules didn't allow it. All I'm trying to do is fix this problem, with the added benefit that the game will be more fun (for most). I'll admit there will be a few people who don't like it. I don't understand why, though I'm guessing it must be something historical.

Make an offer, anything away from the extreme position that the chat is nothing more than a diversion. Let those of us who are here to have fun, have fun. If you don't think the chat is fun then have fun in the game some other way, as long as taking away our fun is not the way you have fun.

Well, had I been at those chat's I would have argued that the instructions not be changed. Since I can't be at all the chats I can't be there to say that now can I? I would always argue that instructions should not be changed unless every demogame participant was present at the chat to place his or her vote in a spot vote. It's not right to disregard someone's vote just because they can't be at the chat.

I'm tired of having to make the same point over and over again about this. Those of you who attend the chats regularly really need to back off and quit trying to force changes to posted instructions this way. If you want to have fun playing a chat based demogame then go play one but leave this a forum based demogame.

The *fix* for the problem is not giving anyone (be it chat attendee, leader or DP) the power to change or ignore posted instructions. The *fix* is paying attention to discussions and polls in the forums and monitoring the instructions that our elected leaders post. (And a healthy dose of living with minor imperfections in the instructions wouldn't hurt either.)

Now we're getting somewhere (though it may not seem like it yet...) :)

I will accept restrictions on changes to instructions which respect the decisions made in the forum. I'm willing to live with chat-based instructions for certain circumstances for which there is no forum decision or if the forum decision has not been correctly communicated:

There is no posted instruction, and the leader or deputy wants to "post" the instruction in the chat.
There are no instructions, the leader / deputy are not present, and the WOTP is unknown, in which case we are faced with a choice between the DP decides unilaterally, the participants at the chat vote, or the DP is required to stop and take it back to the forum.
An item comes up which is not covered by instructions, and the majority at the chat want to stop and decide in the forum.


Think about these specific cases, especially the ones where the leader would be allowed to change his/her own instruction. What if the instruction was not based on citizen input in the first place? Especially if the leader in question asked for input and didn't get any, but this is equally valid if the leader did not ask for input for a specific instruction and nobody offered any input. Whose vote is being violated by changing the instruction?

Now we're getting somewhere (though it may not seem like it yet...) :)

I will accept restrictions on changes to instructions which respect the decisions made in the forum. I'm willing to live with chat-based instructions for certain circumstances for which there is no forum decision or if the forum decision has not been correctly communicated:

There is no posted instruction, and the leader or deputy wants to "post" the instruction in the chat.
There are no instructions, the leader / deputy are not present, and the WOTP is unknown, in which case we are faced with a choice between the DP decides unilaterally, the participants at the chat vote, or the DP is required to stop and take it back to the forum.
An item comes up which is not covered by instructions, and the majority at the chat want to stop and decide in the forum.


Think about these specific cases, especially the ones where the leader would be allowed to change his/her own instruction. What if the instruction was not based on citizen input in the first place? Especially if the leader in question asked for input and didn't get any, but this is equally valid if the leader did not ask for input for a specific instruction and nobody offered any input. Whose vote is being violated by changing the instruction?

So just who decides which decisions were actually made in the forums? Oh, I see, we let those at the chat decide that. :rolleyes:

If no forum decison was made the respective leaders still have the responsibility to post instructions that are needed. If a leader posts a poll and no one votes then the leader should step up and made a decision and post the instruction. If a forum decision is evenly split the leader breaks the tie and posts the instruction. If no forum decision is made and the leader also fails to post an instruction then the DP steps up and makes the decision.

If a forum decision is incorrectly communicated in the posted instructions then we must still live with it. Remember the DP can always stop play to get something corrected if need be. This is a point where posting instructions ahead of time, for all to see would be good. Then the error could be pointed out and corrected before the game play session.

If neither the leader nor deputy can post instructions we ought to be canning them rather than letting give orders in the chat.

No forum decision, no instruction? Simple. Le t the President play the darn game. That's what we elected him (or her) for!

Letting those at the chat stop game play because of lack of instructions gives them a powerful tool. All they have to do is find one thing not covered by the instructions and they can force a stoppage of play if they want to. All the DP has to do is get on the wrong side of a few at the chat and they can start calling for play to stop for trivial things. Why open this up to them?

Since discussion seems to be limited to a few hotly contested areas, I'm going to start posting ratification polls on the articles which are not contested.

edit in a list here later

How about a new discussion here, concerning elections. There is only one thing that we've ever seriously debated about elections, and we haven't resolved it for this ruleset yet: how many elections you can run in. I would personally like having it be that you can run in two elections, but if you do, you must clearly state which position you would take if you win both.

How about a new discussion here, concerning elections. There is only one thing that we've ever seriously debated about elections, and we haven't resolved it for this ruleset yet: how many elections you can run in. I would personally like having it be that you can run in two elections, but if you do, you must clearly state which position you would take if you win both.
That is kind of a non-issue. The election system worked well in DG4, the best thing in the whole game. Basically I think they should stay how they are: 1 nomination per person each term's elections. That way it gives a chance for new players to be able to go into officies as vet players arent being nominiated and accepting every position in the game.

That is kind of a non-issue. The election system worked well in DG4, the best thing in the whole game. Basically I think they should stay how they are: 1 nomination per person each term's elections. That way it gives a chance for new players to be able to go into officies as vet players arent being nominiated and accepting every position in the game.

This is true, but there is another issue. In Term 5 of DGIV, there were 2 contested elections out of 17 positions! Sure, we had 10 provinces, but that's still bad. We should have it that at least 80% of the elections are contested.