Constitutional Discussion: Switching Government Styles

This game has been consumed by redundant and counter-productive discussions. If you want to read about the problems, then visit this thread. So the question is, how do we go about fixing these problems?

The current system has failed, the brilliant form of long-term planning, doesn't produce the creation of abstact ideas, nor does it set a suitable environment for the turning of these ideas into plans.

As such, it seems necessary to do either two things. We can recreate a new system, spending the extra time and effort, and hope that it works much better than the current one. Secondly, we can revert back to the old system, or a modified version of it, whatever people prefer.

So, what should we do?

That's an interesting idea. I've stated before that the status quo is incompatible with the purposes of the demogame, and therefore yes, I do agree with you, to an extent. There are innumerable qualifications, as always, and as you've come to expect from me .

However, despite whatever differences we have, they are minor next to the fact that, without the qualifications mentioned above, do agree with you that we need change. As you stated, there are two choices. Either we choose a new system, with all that that entails, or we revert to an old system. Personally, I favour a mixed version, drawing the best of the old and adding all the innovation that we can gather. More important, even, then the choice of a Constitution, is the manner in which we play the game (and by game I refer to all levels, both primary and secondary). I've stated that while mutability is to be desired, an atomistic decision making process where mutability is taken to an extreme is, as we've seen, unworkable under the current circumstances. We need a blend, of both mutability with a fundamental inviolable idea of how we are going to play the game, but utterly flexible. I've advocated this in some form or another for some time, though perhaps neither eloquently or sufficiently enough in the past.

But I lead away from my true point, constitutional reform. Let's discuss this, and come upon the best alternative, as the status quo is leading us on a path that, if followed, will inevitably lead to ruin, and is utterly contradictory to the primary and secondary purposes of the game. But, I remind you all that this is evitable, and we can in fact improve upon our situation. So let's do just that. Well, what are you waiting for?

Yes of course, the alternate governemtn has caused us to think long term. What I don't get here, is that the traiditionalists want to win this game + want to not micromanage/plan long term. If we want to win on emperor long term and micromanagement should be the 2 largest terms used.

Black_Hole said:

Yes of course, the alternate governemtn has caused us to think long term. What I don't get here, is that the traiditionalists want to win this game + want to not micromanage/plan long term. If we want to win on emperor long term and micromanagement should be the 2 largest terms used.

Click to expand...

What long-term planning? There is no more than there were in past demogames? Even less so is many circumstances.

I'm not arguing that long-term planning and micromanagement shouldn't be used, but, whatever the current system is, it isn't working. Regardless of theory, in practice, it isn't working, in particular in the primary purpose of the game. That remains fact.

Why isn't it working? I don't see any problem... The move up to emperor has more to do with our bad condition then government type.

Black_Hole said:

Why isn't it working? I don't see any problem... The move up to emperor has more to do with our bad condition then government type.

Click to expand...

You are casting the blame upon the AI, although it is not capable of doing the crime. Sense when as the AI gained the capacity to get on these forums?

No, the difficulty level is not our problem. Our problem is the endless neglect we show to several aspects of the game. The problem is with our division of duties, which produces a mentality that creates a disregard for several aspect of the game.

We are creating plans (when we do produce a real plan that is), that are nothing more than inflexible ornamental lines. Things we quickly brushoff when a new situtation arises. I'll quote myself from another thread over this issue:

Strider said:

Tell me, what is the purpose of long term planning? Well if we seperate that phrase down, to plan is the "intended process of getting from one set of circumstances to another." Now, Long-term would imply that we are creating a process to get ourselves from our current sitution to a sitution far away.

Now, all plans have to first take a form as an abstract idea, and it will stay in the form untill it is used. Throughout demogame history, there have been hundreds if not thousands of abstract ideas. A large amount of these ideas never turned into formal plans. While the failure of some of these ideas are correct, many of them were still very good ideas.

Inorder for a formal plan to work correctly, it must be flexible and able to adapt according to the current sitution. It would be hard to create a singular plan that is flexible enough to withstand the test of time, as such it is neccassary to create a plan within a plan, or rather a web of plans.

Click to expand...

Does, our self-titled, plans earn there label? No, there a mockery of true planning. We do nothing more, but play the part of artificial creationaries. I'll quote myself again, from the exact same post:

Strider said:

This government structure, this ingenious form of long term planning. Does it achieve it's purpose? Does it favor the creation of abstract ideas, or even the foundation of flexible formal plans? No, it produces a mockery of imaginative planning, instead of making a flexible plan, we merely scrap our plans and create a new one every time something changes. It creates a simulation that our imaginations grasp upon with blind infantile chastity.

What is it about the framework of the current system that invites disaster? It's the conceived formation of long-term planning that betrays the senses and alienates the mind. It's the result of the perceptions telling you that everything is all right, but your mind telling you that something is just not quite right. The organization is unbalanced and redundant, betraying all logical thought, and confusing the mind as to how it still exists. Intruth, it would have fallen long ago, if not for the strong-mind of it's creationary.

Click to expand...

Do we really wish to continue running around like children playing, or do we instead strive to become true creationaries? We've played games for far to long, now is not the time to act like egocentric children.

Now is the time for the needed changes to be made. Now we fix the problems that have plagued this game for so long, not only those this game, but in the past games. Now is the time for true ideas to form.

Now, we make a true differance.

My main problem is the DG is simply less fun now, well actually Term 1 because of the lack of information and coordination. It might pick up in fun factor this term, if the assorted information doesn't turn into a big giant jumble of a mess.

Strider,
It seems to me you are saying that in the current gov't style we are discussing and re-discussing the long-term plans too much (and over and over again) and that the short term micro-mananagement is suffering. Is this basically correct?

My personal problem and dislike of the DG5 style gov't was that there was extremely little long term planning and it was almost all the immediate micro-management and our direction was always somewhat a "flavor of the week". Do you have any suggested enhancements to address this weakness with the dg5 style gov't?

My question is can there be a middle ground? If we stay with the current can we reduce some of the redundent long-term planning while enhancing the short-term micro-management? If we go back to the dg5 style gov't is there a way to get long term planning an integral part of the discussions?

I am open to suggestions. I personally cannot agree to go back to the dg5 style gov't unless the old problems are somehow addressed.

Strider said:

The current system has failed, the brilliant form of long-term planning, doesn't produce the creation of abstact ideas, nor does it set a suitable environment for the turning of these ideas into plans.

Click to expand...

I can certanly agree to that possition. For example, the Commander of the Armed Forces has very little resposibilities for war planing while the planing is all heavely weighed onto the Department of Exsternal Affairs.

Personaly, I wish to see the old government system to return.

MOTH

I do think we need to trim down a few positions, and elaborate on the tasks of each office. The various Judicial Reviews makes it evident that Aticle C-E are in need of revision. As a Chief Justice I cannot present amendment proposals, but I do think someone should do that without harming the Alternate Government model, but rather trim down some deadwood right and left and structure the organization more.

MOTH said:

Strider,
It seems to me you are saying that in the current gov't style we are discussing and re-discussing the long-term plans too much (and over and over again) and that the short term micro-mananagement is suffering. Is this basically correct?

My personal problem and dislike of the DG5 style gov't was that there was extremely little long term planning and it was almost all the immediate micro-management and our direction was always somewhat a "flavor of the week". Do you have any suggested enhancements to address this weakness with the dg5 style gov't?

My question is can there be a middle ground? If we stay with the current can we reduce some of the redundent long-term planning while enhancing the short-term micro-management? If we go back to the dg5 style gov't is there a way to get long term planning an integral part of the discussions?

I am open to suggestions. I personally cannot agree to go back to the dg5 style gov't unless the old problems are somehow addressed.

Click to expand...

The fifth demogame constitution was quite possibly the lowest the old system has ever become. Close to the start of DG5 I advocated huge reforms, however, none of those were pushed through. I disliked the DG5 constitution, and I would prefer not to revert back to it.

What I want is a complete intergration, we look at what worked, how well it worked, and if there is any possible ways to make it work better. We take the best, or the best of the best.

DG1 and DG2 were the glory days of the demogame, I'm sure you've heard many of us older members tell you that. Both of them had long, drawn out constitutions, which went into great detail. Both of the constitutions were well-organized and handled most of the aspects of the DG (can't find the DG1 or DG2 constitutions, however they were extremely similiar).

During DG3 we decided to use a much shorter constitution, and well, that created (no matter what Donsig tries to tell you) utter diaster. Then, during DG4 our wiseman (AKA Shaitan) left us. Might have been during DG3 though, not quite sure on the timeframe. Anyway the point of the matter is, there was no strong leader, we merely took the best of Shaitans work and stuck it together into one huge lump which later became the DG4 constitution. Well, and I'm sure you know how the DG5 constitution came about. Although they were pieces of crap, they did hold several good factors, and it would be pitiful not to recognize that. What I would prefer to do is, as I said before, take what works.

Now, while the current constitution has failed it's primary objective, the basis of long-term planning is something that needs to be thought about. I believe that the key to do this would be, rather than forcing long-term planning, create an environment that promotes long-term planning.

Of course, taking all of the older ideas of the game isn't the best of ideas. Times change, and we have to change with it. So a modernization is needed, however, it should still be based off of the theories and framework of the orginal. Still, I would feel much more comfortable experimenting above a solid and proven framework.

I'll put it this way, currently we have a pillar (which is the old system). This pillar has been tested and built well, and is strong and sturdy. This gives us the strength and solidity to experiment with differant architectural designs. Now, say we have another pillar, one that we just threw together that has not been tested. Does it seem wise just to start throwing things ontop of it, not knowing wether or not were going to get crushed beneath?

I was never against the idea of long-term planning, no matter what anyone says. What I was against was the drastic measures that was taken to achieve it. We did not have to re-create an entire constitution to bring about long-term planning, we could have done it easily enough with the current system. Would have been easier, faster, more complete, and I'm sure we wouldn't be having this discussion right now if it had been done that way.

The current system fails, in that it focus's entirely on long-term planning, even with aspects that do not need it. Not every part of the game needs long-drawn out plans, and many work much better without them. Of course, in return, there are many that work much better with them. We don't really need to catergize these, but rather allow us the freedom to choose wether we want to plan it out, or we don't.

Does this clear anything up?

Strider said:

DG1 and DG2 were the glory days of the demogame, I'm sure you've heard many of us older members tell you that. Both of them had long, drawn out constitutions, which went into great detail. Both of the constitutions were well-organized and handled most of the aspects of the DG (can't find the DG1 or DG2 constitutions, however they were extremely similiar).

Click to expand...

I spent a few minutes digging in the demogame archives and found THIS THREAD that contains what I believe is the Constitution from the first demogame. Is this it, Strider?

Bertie said:

I spent a few minutes digging in the demogame archives and found THIS THREAD that contains what I believe is the Constitution from the first demogame. Is this it, Strider?

Click to expand...

Wow, good find! However, this is the orginal constitution from the first demogame. I had forgotten about it completely, but thanks for jarring my memory some.

This was not the constitution I was talking about when I said the DG1 constitution. There was a huge controversy later in the game, and if I'm thinking right, about two weeks after that poll had finished. The Council-at-large poistions were removed, and several other changes were made. I was refering to the constitution after these changes.

However, still an excellent find and is certainly something to look at.

Unluckily, I believe the DG1 constitutions and DG2 constitutions are lost to us. However, after I take my shower (which will take place after I make this post), I'm going to look back inside of the forums for the creation of these documents, which are hopefully still there.

Edit: Something I found missing in all the more modern constitutions, which I found inside of the link you posted above:

Once a player has started playing, he/she is the designated player for that chat turn and will not relinquish play to a late arriving but higher ranked official.

Click to expand...

As I said, this is something we have to take a look at for the creation of a new constitution. I've never thought of any possible arguements/fights over this issue.

I am not against changes to the current system, as long as we keep the Long term and short term areas. We may need to make some changes.... But those are for another thread at another time

Black_Hole said:

I am not against changes to the current system, as long as we keep the Long term and short term areas. We may need to make some changes.... But those are for another thread at another time

Click to expand...

As I said above, the current system is to blind and ignorant to be of any real use as a basis. Honestly, the only thing the current system holds is the addition of a focus on long-term planning. Although, as I also said above, it handles that the wrong way, and leaves little flexibility for other options.

The current system, as a basis, is out of the question. It does not have the solidity, nor the experience to handle our government.

Didn't find to much about the DG1 or DG2 constitutions, however I did find acouple of threads that are a good laugh.

Topic Related:
Our laws, a guide and FAQ - Contains some information on the workings of the government at this time (DG2).
The Judicial Log - Contains several articles of the DG2 constitution

Non-Topic Related:
Independence for Delphi County - Contains information about the attempted independence of the province of Delphi County from the rest of the demogame nation.
Phoenatican Domestic Alliance - Domestic departments attempt to stop the indepedence of Delphi County
Inter-departmental war - A demogame Civil War, what happens when the departments get into a fight and decide to use there powers against eachother .
The Delphi Files - Contains information over the peaceful solution to the Delphi independence.
Inter-Departmental Alliance (IDA) - Contains information regarding the department Civil War. This is the HQ of one of the two main sides.

I've seen some interesting things said. The one that struck me most, is yeah, the first and second games were the glory days. Things were lighter and much more fun, as you can see from various threads Strider has listed.

But this is not a call of nostalgia, of mindless adherence to what once was. We must be pragmatic, and find the right answer, taking both the past and the ideas for the future. To do otherwise is madness, and in contradiction to the purposes of the game. Once more, I reiterate my support for amending the status quo and for Striders general position. I call on all to join in with us, and am most encouraged by the expressions of support we have received. My greatest thanks to them.

Curufinwe said:

I've seen some interesting things said. The one that struck me most, is yeah, the first and second games were the glory days. Things were lighter and much more fun, as you can see from various threads Strider has listed.

Click to expand...

You weren't suppose to point that out Although, you got my purpose for posting those "extra" threads

Curufinwe said:

But this is not a call of nostalgia, of mindless adherence to what once was. We must be pragmatic, and find the right answer, taking both the past and the ideas for the future. To do otherwise is madness, and in contradiction to the purposes of the game. Once more, I reiterate my support for amending the status quo and for Striders general position. I call on all to join in with us, and am most encouraged by the expressions of support we have received. My greatest thanks to them.

Click to expand...

I see you decided to use a point after all, several of them Although, my post is completely pointless

That is not true at all. Your post had many great points, each equally significant.