DG5CC1 People V Chieftess Sentencing poll

Bootstoots said:

Some of the fighting (in particular Cyc vs. CT) started much earlier than that, didn't it?

Click to expand...

To tell you the truth, I don't remember exactly. I believe everyone liked CT untill about DG3.

I remember Donsig and I started at it during the "Great Lit Debates" in DG2 Term 1, but I only remember that because it concerned me.

My first ringside seat for Cyc vs CT was during DG2, and dealt with Governors' worker orders. At the time(IIRC), governors had control of work done in their province. CT was President, and you can almost guess the rest.

The bad blood started with me when CT welcomed me to DG modhood by making an animated departure from the Demogame(she wanted the spot, despite running half the forum already) in early DG3. Word has it she did the same to my predecessor, Shaitan, when he got the nod. This unacceptable behavior finally paid off when Thunderfall finally gave into her fits and let her mod here with Rik Meleet(my only endorsement as successor) against my wishes.

Since then, I have witnessed impromtu game starts (remember the 4 day game start announcement?) and a total disregard for the nurturing of the legal process, the first time ever for a primary moderator of a DemoGame. Just as I had feared. She would rather we play a glorified succession game, unbound by rules. And that contempt is still displayed today as our moderator, now serving again as President, continues to run afoul of the law. And then shows no remorse while doing so.

So there, that's my gripe, and it has never been resolved. And that's why I have no problem buying into the Chieftess "power trip" theories, because they are somewhat legit. And that's why I may have tried a bit too hard on this one. For that I am sorry, but the arrogance and lack of accountability has got to stop. We should expect more from our President, and even more from our Moderator.

You know DZ, maybe it will take a hero to save us. Maybe it will take someone with the dedication to say what needs to be said, to all of us. Maybe there watching us right now, waiting for us to get our chance to fly away. Just one person, or thing. Wouldn't that be something?

There are few people in this game I've had a heated debate with and actually did not get mad. The first two I can think of is Shaitan and Ravensfire, others would be Falcon, Ehecatl, and Curufinwe.

Funny how those people are now gone, or there partcipation has severly declined.

You know what I think it is? I think we've all overstayed our welcome, so to speak, towards each other, and now we're getting on each other's nerves like a sibling rivalry.... I think we all just need to calm down...

I've been informed of and requested to come here, and I will vote Abstain due to the lack of information I have currently.

I have several things to note. Chieftess and cyc have been bitterly fighting for some time, and this goes back to what I've noted of two blocs that exist, and have since the earlier, perhaps even the first, Demogame. The first consists of a number of people, many of whom are now gone, including myself, Falcon, Bootstoots, Strider, BCLG, at times Chieftess, and others. This would change of course, and we didn't always stand by eachother, or unitedly oppose the other bloc, for a simple and good reason, there is no reason to. We could oppose eachother and still be friends. The other bloc is and has been comprised of a number of people, foremost among them Cyc, Donsig and others. These two blocs have clashed at times quite heatedly, for example the Constitutional Crisis where a President violated the constitution. I organized a group of people to resist that President, and he fought back against us, frequently with his bloc's support.

I left for a mixture of reasons, namely that school was demanding and I felt it prudent to retire and leave Culture for a time to Snipelfritz and those who shall follow him, to whom I all wish the best of luck, and wish to see Culture taken care of. As well, I've noted how the DG is a tug of war between the blocs. Some contests, especially President, are informally organized along those lines. Chieftess has often fought against Donsig for President. The second bloc seems to have ascendancy over the Judiciary, the Presidency goes back and forth, etc. the demogame goes on, people come and go, and the veterans come and go as well.

Now, it appears a new clash has come. Chieftess made a mistake, of course, and I believe that she did. But, it seems to me that things have been blown out of proportion. What happened to forgiving? It has been forgotten, and replaced by a merciless pursuit for the second blocs aims. Whether or not this vision is correct is beyond me, and I do not intend to pursue it.

And again, this shows a flaw in the system. Instead of a bitter, heated impeachment with all the emotional damage that it entails, we could have had different rules, where things would have turned out differently. We could have reloaded, perhaps, fixing the mistake, we could have a recall election, which is surely better then an impeachment in that it is not as personal, and how many other things. For this reason, I encourage you to reform the ruleset, which seems to always be made and interpreted by one of the blocs, as opposed to both. Such division is not desireable, and for that I implore you all to seek to transcend such divisive matters.

I'll return when I see fit.

Moderator Action: The next person to make any sort of personal attack or troll will get a ban, and the thread will be closed. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

*cough* second bloc

Thanks for joining the conversation, Curu.

As a ranking member of the "second bloc," I can assure you that our contingent has diminished the most over time. That is why our frustration has reached such a point this time out. This used to be a game about setting rules of governance, and that was the fun of it for me. You could propose any idea you had, but there were rules. And most citizens knew the rules.

This is why the "second bloc" always seemed to control the Judiciary: because we are the ones who believe that the law is more important than the game, and not vice versa. It is the second bloc that invites everyone to participate in legal discussion, and then scratches its collective head when members of the first bloc don't even accept the invite. The chasm between the two groups grows further when the first bloc then complains about laws it hasn't taken the time to understand, and the second bloc absorbs the criticism for being too strict, or harsh.

Let's face it: the so-called first bloc wants to have fun chatting and playing civ, and does not want to be too encumbered by something that doesn't interest them: rules beyond that of a normal game of Civ. The second bloc-ers get their fun from the formulation and interpretation of these laws and its effect on the Civ game, and they expect adherence by all participants. Therein lies the clash.

I have said this before, and will say it again: for the first time, we have a "first bloc" moderator who is moonlighting as President. This is not an insult, eyrei, but just plain fact. This alone has thrown the second bloc for a loop, as they are left to twist in the wind without active moderator support for the first time. This has caused some, including myself, to resort to politics.

And really, isn't that what it's supposed to be about? With Democracy comes politics, a fight for control of the game we all love. Say what you will, but this thread resembles political struggles held in real world nations across the globe, and the prospect of it is what gets me to default to this forum first thing in the morning.

Perhaps we should just declare ourselves and get it over with. I think that you will then see that the evil second bloc is not quite the threat it may have once been.

I was watching Gore debate Dole about issues of the nation on CSPAN, and towards the end, the commentator asked both what one of this most important aspects of American life (something to that effect) they would strive to improve. Dole rambled on about this and that until he finally fell asleep. Then Gore stated that one of the things he'd like to see improved was a more open debate format about politics developed here in the United States. I totally agreed with him, as did the audiance at the University. I wish I could remenber the exact wording, but when I heard him, it made perfect sense with currrent national administration, which is wandering towards Big Brother each chance it gets. It also made me think of our beloved Demogame. To me, and I guess I've been tagged as a player for the second block, this game is about debating. Of course people are going to have a different opinion than you. That's human nature. I've seen people here agree on an issue, yet still have an arguement about it. Just because!

Anyway, the poll is now 0/11/4/11/12/2. Regardless of what the final punishment is, this has been one of the more interesting moments in my Demogame history. And I have to thank not only the Vets who speak their mind, but the newer players whose input to this scenario has saved us from the HumDrum it might have been. Thanks to all.

I'm glad I do not align myself with a bloc. I'm a loner haha.

Donovan Zoi said:

It is the second bloc that invites everyone to participate in legal discussion, and then scratches its collective head when members of the first bloc don't even accept the invite.

Click to expand...

Heh, I dont remember getting an invitation . Though im not sure if I am a 1st bloc or a 2nd bloc.

Well, I am very happy that both sides has conceded that there are indeed a bipartisan system, which is fine. Bipartisan is natural, we have right and left, male and female, green and red maritime lamps, day and night, yin and yang and so on. Most communities accept this duality of things, but the Demogame. That some of the stealthily hidden proponents of their respective platforms now surface from the underworld now that something large is at stake, the visible, well-documented and derogatively dismissed assassination of a wonder strategy for the symbolic gain of a singular swordsman is facing the side where the smallest human error, even a brief rouse of situtational control, can lead to an unfair impeachment.

You people can deny to the end of the world there is no bipartisan system, or that there are none two blocs, and the absence of such a bipartisan system preserves the peace. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a very utopian and hollow vision. Human nature dictates cooperation and competition, and no artificial construct, be it a dreamy anarcho-syndicalist political system or a more corporative one, can deny the fact that principal and smaller debates polarizes two sides. To one extent I agree with Ravensfire, some private polling will leave individual members more free to follow their objectives, but Ravensfire leaves out the fact that the very visible presence of moderators impacts both freedom of expression, sanctions and the legal sustainability and accountability of private polling. I consider the moderators as a de facto Supreme Court, their decisions are integral to the Demogame as champions for the freedom of expression and though and as guardians of peoples inalienable rights of a fair and ethical treatment and protection from character assassination.

Well, now all of you has more or less thrown out your cards, there are indeed two blocs, everyone admits it, the bird fled the cage, the emperor has no clothes.
Why not be mature about it and create a solid framework akin to the Roman republic or something, or USA for that matter, your bipartisan thinking is so ingrained that it is too hard to disattach from. The minority of us live in one party systems. I lived in one country for a while, and there is no real democracy with such a system, even with more or less independent individuals, as long as the establishment is forceful.

Maybe moderators should be understood as a part of the constitution, and maybe we should have more firm rules of what is character assassination versus abuse of power?
I cannot see this Demogame work without both Chieftess and Cyc, simply due to the labor they put in. I also think that both Ravensfire and Rik Meleet has a stabilizing influence, and that Donovan Zoi and Bootstoots make very valid observations.

So please bear over with me, when I propose that people put their heads together and
adapt the constitution between the disagreeing sides. Try to build bridges, not burn them. My fear is that provocateurs will make this debate even more a slugfeast, so that the thread will be closed, and then lead to the massive cover up I warn against.
If this turns out to be a cover-up, it is more a game of "Junta".

And I will back Eyrei on the proposition he came with, to put a cap on how many terms a person can serve in a row, in order to avoid corruption and abuse in the game.
This will lead to more involvement, and a bipartisan system will make it easier for newbees to relate to issues and so on. Plus, it will always be interesting which wings will come into place within each party bloc. If real democracies do fine with it, why not here?

Strider said:

gert-janl, your fairly new to the game, there have been several people fighting inside of this game for a long time. Most of it started in DG3 I believe.

Click to expand...

It's true that I am fairly new, but I am amazed by all these personal attacks in a poll, where should be justice, and what should bring justice. People don't even pretend to make a fair and just decision, they just issue the punishment they think suits the person, instead of a punishment which suits the crime

eyrei said:

I think impeachment for such a minor thing is absurd, and I don't appreciate your attempt to make this get ugly again.

Click to expand...

Flaunting legally posted build queues is not a minor thing. It is a violation of one of our highest constitutional principles. I know this is not DG 2, 3 or 4 but I recall Chieftess doing this in all those games as well. She will continue to do so unless we tell her to stop by giving her the appropriate incentive. She certainly hasn't gotten the message yet despite the many times this issue has been raised.

Provolution said:

This will lead to more involvement, and a bipartisan system will make it easier for newbees to relate to issues and so on. Plus, it will always be interesting which wings will come into place within each party bloc. If real democracies do fine with it, why not here?

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with this, Provolution. Speaking as a "newbie", I think I would be much more intimidated in giving advice, or running for office, if there were a firm party system in place. Looking at the real world, why do you think all the senators and congressmen in the US Congress are old men/women? Because they've had to spend years working up the party ladder-- "paying their dues" if you will. Party systems are prohibitive to open involvement. Plus, they restrict what a person may or may not agree with. To use another real world example, look at Sen. John McCain, the republican "rebel" simply because he disagrees with the party on several issues.

No, a party system would not be good for the DG, or for newcomers. I think the recent "bloc" argument vastly overrates the size of these two sides. What bloc am I in? Is MOTH in? Is gert-janl in? Sir Donald III? TimBentley?...

Why codify something that prohibits involvement and makes the majority of DG players into outsiders?

Ashburnham said:

No, a party system would not be good for the DG, or for newcomers. I think the recent "bloc" argument vastly overrates the size of these two sides. What bloc am I in? Is MOTH in? Is gert-janl in? Sir Donald III? TimBentley?...

Why codify something that prohibits involvement and makes the majority of DG players into outsiders?

Click to expand...

What bloc are we all in? The same one as KCCrusader - The third block - the lone wolf bloc.

In regards to USA polictics we are more like the majority of voters who are clearly in the center and can thus sway the vote to one side or the other but can't in principal get elected directly. The "independant" voters.

Could the demo-game be a three part system with a firmly entrenched center in the manner of a "Noob party"? Maybe, but then even the noobs would have to work there way up the ladder.

I agree with Ashburnham, we don't need no stinking parties. The demo-game seems to have have a good number of us third bloc people in office. I'm really not sure who is in what blocs, but of the people who have been registered for CFC in June or later we colectively hold: 5/14 offices and at least 3 deputy postions. I know that some of the others are considered "new to the dg" and some are at CFC less than a year. This seems to be pretty good representation from the third bloc.

Maybe we should do a little research. Let's compare attitudes of this demogame to other demogames. Is there any other demogame without political parties? How do they handle these types of situations? Do we handle these situations better than them?

Outside parties, what is more important, a flexible game so the government can do what it feels is needed or one with many laws to keep government in check?

hmmm a 3 way tie, with 1 hour and 45 minutes left....

ravensfire said:

Sorry for the late comment on this.

The poll is setup with the options ranked from most severe to least severe. I would suggest that we first assume that a vote for a particular option is also a vote for all less-severe options. The sentence is then the most severe option that a majority of the voters approve of.

Using the current vote totals as of this post (0/9/3/9/8/1), WARNING would be the punishment.

This system makes it difficult for a severe punishment to be handed out unless a clear majority of the citizens support such a sentence. If there is some indecision (such as this case), it seeks to find a punishment that a majority does support.

We are trying to determine how to sanction a citizen that we found guilty of violating our rules. This is a process that should be left to the people, not the Judiciary. Under current rules, there is a fair chance that an option most citizens consider too severe (Impeachment) could be chosen. This system more accurately reflects the collective will and desires of the whole people.

-- Ravensfire

Click to expand...

This system does seem to be a bit late because if we had this in place then we would not be in this mess. The poll that caused the problem was tied 6 all for those who wanted to stop both prebuilds and those who wanted to continue the prebuild in Zojoji. But there also two votes to continue both prebuilds. I know this is old evidence, but please hear me out. So logic would say that they would have settled for the lesser option, as we are doing in this poll. Another point is about the instructions. The instructions for the Capital were very clear and concise, and therefore they were followed, but the instuctions for Zojoji we not clear enough. Giving a preference in not clear instructions in my book. So what should we do in this situation. I voted for a simple warning, anything more than that is way too harsh for a minor violation.

Maybe we should impliment a preferencial voting system that would make sure the WOTP is followed. At the time of the TC the WOTP was was in favour of continueing one of the prebuilds. This would make things more complicated but it would hel to solve this problem were the WOTP is not being followed. Maybe we would need to set up a separate ministry that over see elections and have a moderator that is not part of the verify the result so that there is no hint of collusion. There might be easier ways of doing this.

Am I the only one who seems to think that the ministers are getting away from this mess scott free? I think that there has to some sort of punishment handed down to the ministers if the President is going to be punished. One question, are the ministers required to attend the TC? If not, why isn't this part of the ministers role? I know that it is impossible to attend all TC but there must be someone from each ministry to make sure that the instructions are being carried out. If it isn't possible for the minister to be there then either the deputy or someone who has been given authority by the minister, if that is nessecary.

Since my last post, there has been some excellent posts made by citizens new and old. This is what I like about the game. I said I was "tagged" as a second block player above, but the truth of the matter is I was the Lone Wolf player for years. That's just the way it was. So I know how some of the newer players feel. I didn't have a "block" (sorry I don't spell it in that cute little French way...), as I had to independantly fight for everything I got. donsig was a friend that I defended when this "first block" tried to railroad him. That was it. No conspiracy. No block. Finally we parted ways as he seemed to drift off into donsigism. That's just the way it goes. I still feel like a Lone Wolf and I'm amazed when I find a friend take up arms and stand beside me. I totally welcome that, but I'm...suprised. It doesn't normally happen. There is nothing wrong with being a Lone Wolf and there is nothing wrong with having friends. What wrong is when you use those friends for your own political ends, note curu's entrance, and have this justify your rule breaking and tyrannical behavior. As CT likes to say, "This is just a game.", this is not another one of the power struggles. All games have rules, if they didn't they wouldn't be games, they'd just be some aimless use of time with no structure. Let's follow the rules and play the game right.