I'm not sure that I will have much to say that hasn't already been said, and it has been a long day for me, so this may not make as much sense as I would like, but I feel that I should express my opinions regarding the concerns expressed by many of our citizens.
First, I had no experience with the Civ2 Demo Game, except to read a few of the threads when they first started talking about this Civ3 game, so I can't compare this game with that. I do remember the points Bill_In_PDX raised about the objectives of this Democracy game during the great pop-rushing debates, and perhaps that is an area that we should discuss in more depth. I am not sure that most of us do have a common understanding of the "goals" or purpose of this game, just a vague sense of how, not why.
I looked at it as an opportunity to play a cooperative game, with different people contributing ideas, experience, and strategies to come up with a result that would be more interesting than a solo game, combined with some elements of roleplaying. I agree that it does not make for the most efficient way of playing the game, but I still think we are all trying to suggest efficient strategies in the game.
As for the issues of citizen power, I think that the power of any citizen is a reflection of the amount of involvement in posting on the threads. If you look at most of our recent additions to the cabinet, such as the new governors and deputies, they were citizens who posted frequently, and therefore recieved nominations. Even Donsig, the leader of our loyal opposition, was recommended for Deputy Domestic Leader, primarily because his many passionate posts showed he was interested and involved in the game.
From this respect, the game rather accurately reflects the real operation of most modern democracies, in that an individual citizen will have only a limited ability to influence legislation or officials, but activists who consistently get involved in issues will be able to get elected first to local office, then move on to national positions. I have seen several posts about "government conspiracies", and frankly I think some of it is unfair. We are only half way through our second term, as more governorships come up and we have more elections, I think you will see a greater accessibility to government positions. I did not even know most of the cabinet members when I joined our nation, but by consistent posting and involvement in different threads, I have gotten to know many people in our nation, and I do believe everyone is trying to do what they feel is best for our nation.
Two points that definitely do need to be addressed are the turn summaries, and the relationship between the turn chats and the forum threads. I subscribe to all official threads, and try to read through all new threads, usually checking the board at least 3 times a day, and I still have trouble figuring out what happened when I miss a turn chat. I would love to be able to say that the new Phoenatican Weekly Standard will solve all this (shameless plug), but it won't, and isn't even intended to. Maybe we need to create a new position for National Press Secretary to attend the chats and post a summary.
Second, the turn chat. Again, it seems that people have different opinions about what the turn chat is supposed to accomplish and/or represent. I thought that most issues were to be decided prior to the turn chat, that is what the official threads and polls are for. Then, the chat is to implement them, and react as needed to events in the game. It sounds as though some think that rather than specific instructions, we should put forth general guidlines, and the president implements those as he sees fit. However, by my understanding of the constitution, the President does not have the power to override a Minister without a cabinet vote. Actually, the president does not have much power after all in our current system. He/she must implement the instructions of the ministers.
Then again, the ministers are supposed to be acting in the will of the people, as expressed in the polls and threads. I am not sure what level of detail this is supposed to to take. Do we poll for every decision, or just the major/controversial ones? Should a governor open a poll for every city to develop a build queue? Or present a slate of builds, and ask for a vote? Or present their recommendations, and if there is no objections, it becomes policy? The last is basically how the U.S. Federal Government issues regulations (Whether or not the U.S. Government is the BEST model for a Democracy is another topic, but it certainly is a recognizable one). If the first choice is the case, I am probably as guilty as anyone, because I generally make my recommendations after analysis, and have only gone to polls when I think the decision will have a major impact or generate debate.
Meanwhile, I think I have rambled on enough, but I want to take whatever steps we can to encourage the participation of all our citizens, and I think it begins with a better common understanding of what we are trying to accomplish/simulate. The turn summary issue is certainly one that we must address immediately, regardless of how the other issues are decided, that is one of the responsibilities of any form of government. (Maybe we were just waiting for the printing press?). The turn chat issue requires more discussion, but is probably more central to the long-term direction of the game.
