DGVI Constitution: General Discussion

Okay, so I started a thread to begin discussing the constitution.
Probably the first thing we want to decide on is where are we gonna get the constitution from?

We have some main choices, but some crazy people might find others:
1. Create a new ruleset
2. Pull over our current ruleset and make some modifacations
3. Use an older rulset(like DG3) and make some modifications.

DG5 Ruleset
DG4 Ruleset
DG3 Ruleset
DG2 Ruleset
DG1 Ruleset

The DG1 and 2 rulesets are offline and I cant get them. Sorry

I think we need to involve citizens/congressmen in a more interesting fashion.
This also means that we could make the city naming process more transparent and meaningful to the game-dynamics. City-naming could emulate private property in the game, as some players fancy their own named city over others. Mayors in a province could also vote for their governors position in a council taking place every 20 turns. I honestly think we could use representative democracy on certain decisions with longer term impacts.

Of course, this assumes we got public polling in place for these decisions. In fact, if we had more real reason for citizens to be involved at the city and province level, we would get a more interesting game dynamic. With C3C we can also name units, so we could introduce game defined concepts such as private ownership and so on. high producing cities, or cities with much wealth production would be asked to subsidize poorer cities and so on. Cyc made this interesting with his Zojoji lobby, clashing with the Odawara lobby, a proper ruleset handling such dynamics would indeed be interesting. This also applies to natural resources and land improvements.
In fact, there seems to lack some economic/military model on the citizen level to call for involvement.

Good old Copy/Paste.

As for Future Demogames, I say we have a group of people collect "similar laws" for each section between the 5 Demogames, for comparission and Polling.

For example, the Judicial Code of DG5 would be listed with the similar laws/codes from DG1, DG2, DG3, and DG4. We then examine these, and poll between these as to which one we would tentaively accept for DG6.

Options for each major point would be:
DG1
DG2
DG3
DG4
DG5
None of the Above.
Abstain.

While this would likely result in a hodgepodge, it would at least be good enough for a Draft, which we can improve upon.

I think good polling standards would reduce the number of polls, but a limit has to be there to enforce it, this would also make the ministers put more energy into each poll. I think the legal department sometimes go to far in regulating the game, but the problem is not necessarily on the ministers or the citizens side, but in the ruleset. I will certainly have nothing to do with in game laws in general throughout the game, as such processes may be heavily politicized and questionable.

About some civ out of the blue declaring a war is another matter, each military candidate should present their military doctrine for all possible wars in the election as their main platform, so we could handle surprising attacks.
We must change elections from popularity contests to political choices.

This means that each candidate must put in some interesting work on how they want to worj throughout their term.

For the military it is the following:

Order of Battle and Formations, cooperation with governors
Upgrades and military reforms, cooperation with domestic, partly science
critical border-tiles, cooperation with culture
War preparedness, a list of each city to be taken, cooperation with FA

These platforms could be negotiated in one Ministerial conference taking place in the beginning of each Term, where the people should vote on the outcome of these negotiations. This conference could be chatlogged, and organized in an orderly fashion. I can see that the ministers would negotiate between their platforms, and people could vote on the alternative policies coming out of this. This would still leave plenty of room for other polls, but heavily secure cooperation between ministers based on their election platforms. the will of the people would still decide, but long term strategies could be voted on in this way, emphasizing the meaning of elections.

I would like to see at least two (probably three) more or less complete versions presented as starting points before we get into heavy discussions. As I understand it, the first ruleset was presented as fait accompli for ratification, instead of endless and unfocused discussion.

Don't misunderstand, there is a place for discussion by everyone. I just don't want to build it up one article at a time like we did the last couple of times.

There are at least four proposals for a starting point.

• Minimal changes to the DG5 rules.
• Donsig has suggested using the DG3 constitution and putting the necessary lower laws in place under that framework.
• I have a radical idea which is in its early formative stages. I could present the idea in organizational terms and farm out the legal language, or hold it relatively closely for another week or two and present the draft legal language. A select few have seen the overview and have a relatively positive view of it.
• Another citizen is working on a proposal of some kind. I do not have the proposal and wont name the author until he/she decides to come forward.

Nobody can tell you not to discuss it. I would like to encourage participation in the current game as a higher focus than this discussion.

The problem is SD3 is that the dg1 and dg2 rulsets were on websites and those websites have been taken down, and I have no clue where the dg3 one is at

im going to add the dg4 one to the list for reference

DS

I feel I have done my share for Japanatica, good and bad, and right now I feel like Robert McNamara or something, so I stay out of harms way and stick around here.

okay I just found the dg3 ruleset, its here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=51315

How can we copy and paste when we may eliminate turnchats or do a whole new method all together??

First we need to find out how we are going to play turns, then we can develop a ruleset. Do you understand?

I think the key is to agree on the pace of the game, and organization of decisions. Then we can patch in the laws. Problem is that some people start with laws BEFORE organization.

Provolution said:

I think the key is to agree on the pace of the game, and organization of decisions. Then we can patch in the laws. Problem is that some people start with laws BEFORE organization.

Click to expand...

this thread is for organazation
ginger_ale SD3 was talking about copy and pasting his post(he first posted it in another thread), even if we change TCs we can still work on parts of the ruleset that wont change

Just remember, whichever way is chosen not everyone will be pleased.

If we can find them, I say we use a modified version of the DG1 or DG2 ruleset (both of which are very similiar).

If we can't, then I say we take the current ruleset and do some huge modifications to it.

Black_Hole said:

this thread is for organazation
ginger_ale SD3 was talking about copy and pasting his post(he first posted it in another thread), even if we change TCs we can still work on parts of the ruleset that wont change

Click to expand...

Ok then.

I'm with Strider though...the latest DGs haven't focused as much on discussions and pollings as they could've, and (especially DG4) had too much legal stuff. From what I've read and heard, the first couple DGs were the smoothest, but again, we need to decide how we will run this demogame.


edit: From the demogame website:

DG1 Rules
DG2 Rules

Ginger_Ale said:

Ok then.

I'm with Strider though...the latest DGs haven't focused as much on discussions and pollings as they could've, and (especially DG4) had too much legal stuff. From what I've read and heard, the first couple DGs were the smoothest, but again, we need to decide how we will run this demogame.


edit: From the demogame website:

DG1 Rules
DG2 Rules

Click to expand...

Thank you Ginger_Ale!!

I say we use a slightly modified version of the DG1 ruleset then.

Im supprised that you have found the two dusty documents

CivGeneral said:

Im supprised that you have found the two dusty documents

Click to expand...

Not if you lurk hard enough.

Ginger_Ale said:

How can we copy and paste when we may eliminate turnchats or do a whole new method all together??

First we need to find out how we are going to play turns, then we can develop a ruleset. Do you understand?

Click to expand...

Not really. If we adopt the DG3 constitution (just the constitution, not the code of laws) it is sufficiently flexible to allow for turn chats or no turn chats, turn o calender based terms, etc. It's a framework upon which to build. It's a document that doesn't lock us into too much. It allows us to make the decisions you mention as we go along.

EDIT: Strider: The DG3 constitution is a slightly modified version of the DG1 and DG2 rulesets. The difference between the DG1 and DG2 rulesets is this: The DG2 ruleset is must more comprehensive and restrictive. Bear in mind that the DG2 ruleset was the basis for the DG4 ruleset.

There's a definate trend here...

DG1 - Lient (I know I didn't spell that one right. )
DG2 - Restrictive
DG3 - Lient
DG4 - Restrictive
DG5 - Lient

Hopefully the next one isn't too restrictive.

I think this is because as we get new players, (kind of like generations), lient newcomers want a more restrictive ruleset, and vice versa.

Let's just do this:


Create a backbone ruleset of the basics of play.

Elected Officials and their duties
How to determine the WOTP (that is, discussion, polls, TCIT, then the 10 turns in the turnchat).
Turnchat rules

Last demogame, I did a survey of why people left the demogame.

1/3 said it was because of the legal bickering (in a broad sense). The 2 months pre-game legal bickering before this game didn't help matters either.

1/3 also said it was because of school/work (didn't have time).

1/3 said "other".

Summertime is our most active timeframe, and we really messed it up this time around. That's 2/3rd that we could have had in the game over the summer to keep people's interest in the game. Instead, we chose to argue for 2 months over the constitution. I do hope more people take note of the fact that users aren't going to be too happy about legal bickering in the demogame now that I've mentioned it for the 2nd time....

Chieftess said:

Summertime is our most active timeframe, and we really messed it up this time around. That's 2/3rd that we could have had in the game over the summer to keep people's interest in the game. Instead, we chose to argue for 2 months over the constitution. I do hope more people take note of the fact that users aren't going to be too happy about legal bickering in the demogame now that I've mentioned it for the 2nd time....

Click to expand...

Like it or not, CT, the law is the key aspect to this game. You can make your little speech a third time, and a fourth, and you still cannot change that. Of course, you still have the power to undermine legal preparations if they happen to contradict what you feel this game should be about. And it will be quite telling if you pull it off again, especially without warning.

Quit being hostile to the process, and I will quit calling you out on it. I am getting tired of it, aren't you?