Citizen Pulse: What Leadership Style do you want?

Provolution has observed that recently it seems like we're doing a lot of polling and leaving our elected leaders very little to do other than follow the poll.

What do you, the citizens, want from your leaders? Do you expect everything to be polled, or do you want the leaders to make some decisions on their own? Do you want obviously bad choices (in the opinion of the responsible leader) to be left off polls with an explanation in the discussion on why the option is eliminated?

This game belongs to all of us, your feedback on how you want it to be conducted is critical to helping us make it an enjoyable experience for the most people possible.

well during the first term most things should be polled, because mistakes will hurt you much more than they will later in the game

In general, use the campaign for general directions, use knowledge of leaders to seek information, and reduce the options to a handful, use polls to make final decisions as needed.

Examples:

MDA: Campaign proposes aggressive settling to North, with some development elsewhere. MDA solicits advise on possible city locations, and polls the top 2-3 options as he sees them.

MFA: Campaign proposes aggressive defense of national interests. Instructions are to reject all demands, regardless. An opportunity appears for a limited war - works with MoD and polls plan (Yea/Nay).

MC: No campaign (for whatever reason, need example). Opens discussion to determine direction - build wonders, which ones, etc. Due to massive commitment, MC polls for confirmation when they view an opportune time exists to begin construction.

The people are involved to determine the overall general goals via the election. If you vote for the person, surely that means you support their ideas, right? The leader then makes intermediate decisions, posting information, screenshots, guiding discussions. Various options are then reduced to the top 2-3 options, and polled if needed.

An example of chaos is the recent city location poll. I would have much preferred to see 2-3 options, tops, for citizens to vote on. Yes, someone's idea will be tossed out. So? Trust the leader that was elected to do their job.

-- Ravensfire

I must say I agree with Ravensfire here, otherwise elections would only create poll-takers and hypocrite populists. if there are no programs or platforms, individually, the game would lose a lot of its potential and soul. It seems like people are fighting hard to make other people play their game with their preferred toys, that is quite human.
However, where I differ, is that I want some balance of elections, ministers, polls and discussions, so an elected office means something, and the the departments work together, not separately or against each other.

Great ideas, Ravensfire. I have always wondered why the people have to lead the leader through every step of the process. I mean, isn't the leader's very election the basic example of the peoples' will?

However, voting for every little thing seems to be hardwired into our system. And lamentably, it will most likely take (oh yes!) a poll to decide to alter that route. Or perhaps just some bold leaders who want to push the envelope.

If the ministerial positions are indeed as weak as they are this term, I would make that law applicable to all terms, and inform the candidates prior to the election what they are going into, and that they have no real say on what is going to happen, regardless of their
program leading them to office.

Well, the problem as I see it is that the only departments with a great number of individual choices are the Dept. of War and the Governors since Article E passed. Besdies these, only the Science Dept has powers that do not infringe on anyone's territory (changing the Tech to be Researched). Domestic slider changing affects Science while Mobilization affects Governors, Trade and Foreign have to make sure not to step on each other's toes while trading and negotiating, as well as Science and War, and Culture, what does Culture actually do?

On the other hand... even Culture can set/endorce a General Policy.


Hm... perhaps we should extend "Tie-Breaking" power to all close votes, i.e. if the Minister prefers a choice within 5-10% of the "Choice of the People" (i.e. the Plurality Winner) then they have the right to adopt an alternate within that 5-10%. Or even extend that into a general 60% for the best option, i.e. if the "best" option does not reach 60%, (or perhaps 60% for Yea/Nay, 51% for Multichoice,) the Appropriate Minister has the Right to "Veto" the People's decision. (The DP, however, would not have such right except perhaps in inter-departmental affairs. If the appropriate Minister or Deputy cannot be reached before the TC, then the original measure passes except in case of a tie. Only in case of a tie can the President intervene in this manner.)

Or, go the other way. Have the Ministers announce their instructions for the Next TC within 24 hours of the previous one. This allows a Discusion period for "The People" to voice Disapproval and set up a "override refferndum." The OR will have to meet the same standard as an entry in the Code of Laws (if not a more strict standard) in order to be valid. (The only problem I see here is that if the instructions are Rejected, that would necessitate another poll to decide what we should do.)


Hm... that "Veto Power" allowance actually sounds good. Vetos would likely need to be consistent with the stands they were elected on, lest the Minister be charged with a CC. (If they stick with their positions, at least the Justices can say "You got what you elected.")

I think this idea is good, since there has to be some benefit to being elected to a ministerial position, though perhaps ministers should submit a justification of their actions to the Judiciary if they choose to override a 60% poll or something. Veto definitely looks like a good idea.

Well Sir Donald III, if I were you, I would write a proposal trying to balance the value of the elections. If you read the election threads, in particular the MA one, there was laid some serious platform thinking there. Now we have some individuals who claims the people to be on their side that does not like that idea. However, they cannot fully state that they are indeed the voice of the people, or that it is anti-constitutional until it has been discussed in a thread and polled, and then made part of the laws.

I have too much barrage coming my way to quietly submit a well written proposal, as I have 3-4 individuals who will make that proposal a personal vendetta as soon as they see my nick go up like a red flag to them. So please do what you feel is right.

However, if they go on like this, and win through with that. I would not recommend people to burn too much energy in the elections, as they are becoming polling secretaries anyways, with no regard to program and promises whatsoever.
I think some players are used to this fatalist "I can poll you any poll any day you want, just vote me", who reads the winds, and we get candidates of that nature.
Fair enough, we see where it goes, but I know what Cyc may say at this...

I think that elected officials need freedom to implement the policies they have run with from the beginning. If citizens don't like the outcomes, then they can do something mid-term (eg if the official constantly goes against the will of the people) or vote them out at the end of the term.

I do think that, due to the fairly small number of decisions being made at the moment, things are a bit out of proportion. As the game goes on, there will be a lot more decisions to be made, and with consequences not as severe as at the moment.

(deleted, duplicate post)

People could just let the game flow faster, and make it more interesting to everyone.
We will certainly get no more than 50 turns in entire august.

Now that this has had a chance to "cook" for a while, here are my thoughts, with my "citizen" hat on.

To begin with, in a nutshell I would like to see polling based on strategies, and leave low-level details to the elected representatives.

The idea that the ministers post their instructions early and then give the people a chance to disagree sounds quite interesting. Have to think about that a bit more...

In part it comes down to leadership style. I handled Domestic in DG3 and DG4 by proposing a clear settlement plan to the people, getting some input and adding the most serious proposals to the plan, and then holding votes on which section of the plan to carry out next. Because I started out with a predefined plan, I exercized a great deal of ministerial power in those terms instead of being merely a servent of the people and a slave to polling.

Even now, we have the opportunity to use a similar leadership style. Each of the cabinet members has a choice to make, between being totally open to citizen input by following every change and letting the people set the agenda, or proposing a plan and limiting changes to it to only the best suggestions.

Ahh, I remember having a similar debate back in late DG1 or DG2. Some said that the people elect the leaders to represent them in some way, and that they should have some say, too. After all, they are leaders/advisors.

Chieftess said:

Ahh, I remember having a similar debate back in late DG1 or DG2. Some said that the people elect the leaders to represent them in some way, and that they should have some say, too. After all, they are leaders/advisors.

Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, the pendulum is on its 2nd or 3rd swing between direct democracy (poll it to death) and representative democracy (leaders and polls on the most important decisions).

Indeed, I would personally prefer the "Instruct First, Dissent Second" idea, if it didn't mean that a "Popular Veto" would, in effect, cancel a Turnchat. (When Instructions are given, there'd be a 24 hour Discussion followed by effectively a 36 hour Vote of No Confidence. That's the entire Inter-Chat right there.)

To me, it seems that the only Ministers with "low-level details" are the Minister of War and the Governors. These details, I agree that once the general strategy, and possibly general attack plan, has been decided, we should leave the individual battles to the Field Captains. (In fact, I would be in favor of the War Minister appointing Temporary "General" positions to advise him/her on battle plans for individual campaigns.)

I'm gonna keep it short here.

The ministers job in essence is simply to sift through all the options and pick the best 2-4 or whatever number apply to the situation. From there the ministers need to poll it. If the decision is a pretty no brainer type situation (like give that other civ the 123gpt it wants or go to war) then the ministers should make the decision. The Defense Ministry is a notable exception to the general rule. I see it more as a Generalship position that doesnt really need to ask advice of the people. It is indirectly run by the people and the conflicting ideas of the people can only get in the way of it doing its job in the most effective manner possible.

Hope that was short enough, best regards.

I would agreee with Bobby Lee here, as that would strike a balance of Representative Democracy and Polls, as the elections define the program platform of the elected.
Then the demogame would be to map each ministers platform from the campaigns, and influence as much as possible without violating the platforms, the polls, the laws and the be nice rules on the forums. I agree Bobby, that would be more sensible.

Perhaps a Modified version of my "Instruct First, Dissent Second" idea could work:

1. All Ministers and Governors (and/or their Deputies) have 24 Hours after the end of the Turnchat to draft orders for their respective ministries/Provinces for the upcomming Turnchat. At the end of this period, the Ministers/Governors/Respective Deputies will post their instructions in the upcomming Turnchat thread. It is the responsibility of the President and his/her Chain of Command to put up the next Turnchat thread as soon as possible. Once this happens, it is then the responsibility of the Ministers/Governors to put up the instructions in a timely manner. (no later than the latter of 24 hours after the last TC or 6 hours after the thread has been put up.)

2. When the instructions for a Ministry/Province have been posted, a Discussion period lasting up to 25 Hours before the upcomming Turnchat, will be available for citizens to discuss the present proposal and to draft alternatives. To be considered, a proposal should have enough detail to have its individual merits debated. If a proposal affects only a portion of the instructions, the proposal must say so. Also, if a proposal is rescinded by its submitter, it must say so on its original post.

3. At the end of this disscussion period, the Minister/Governor will post a poll listing all viable proposals which shall last for 24 hours. The first option will always be the Original Instructions.
a. If a single option other than the Original Instructions or Abstain gains a Majority of the votes in this poll, the Minister/Governor will change their instructions to best conform to the victorious Proposal.
b. Otherwise, the Original Instructions stand.


Actually, I'm thinking this may go better in the Code of Laws. I'm thinking that the "initative" clauses in Article D would allow such a procedure.

Actually, SD3, that's detailed enough to go into the Code of Standards, but that's another story. The genral concept of what you've posted is good for a rule of thumb, and it will work in the long run.

I believe Leaders should lead. That's why we call them Leaders. Their job is to head their Department and make damn sure that end of the game doesn't drop the ball when things get tough. Aggressive leadership is wanted and needed here. Let's allow it. If someone exceeds their authority, we know how to handle it. Pushing the proverbial envelope is the sign of a good Leader, so those Leaders need a little elbow room. I'm not saying I approve of cowboy Leaders who do whatever they want and think they can just ride off into the sunset. We do have rules. But sometimes it's wiser to watch than to speak.

There are A LOT of things that need to be polled by perspective Leaders. City locations, Provincial borders, should we go to war or Mobilize, should we allow pop rushing, etc... So there should be a lot of polls! They are not bad things. The people must be heard on many different facets of the game. A good Leader, IMHO will listen while he Leads, but he will lead. He will afford the citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions on not only the items that must be polled, but on side items as a matter of inteeligence gathering for planning purposes.

I don't know if we can hard-wire in rules for this or if we just need to be shown the path. I have seen it before and will probably see it again. The trick is to recognize it while it's happening. Let's loosen up a little and let the Leaders lead. If they get out of line, I'll smack them for you. j/k