reduce governmental positions (PPO discussion 2)

disorganizer · Jun 16, 2002

Sponsored by the Power to the People Organization (PPO), we would like you, our citizens, to discuss one of the issues of our manifest in here. We would like to work out a working ammendment or at least a list of items to be implemented we could campaign for.

Topic:
REDUCE GOVERNMENTAL POSITIONS

What does this mean?
We would like to reduce the number of governmental positions, which means the number of cabinet positions. In our opinion, the powers incorporated in these positions are not needed at all. Instead, only the real function of those positions is needed. We do not want to cancel out these positions as you see, but reduce their powers of ruling our nation.

How can we implement this?
That is what we would like to find out. We will update a summary of the proposals in post#2 of this thread during discussion. As we come to a conclusion, this summary is taken to a campaing and maybe even to a constitutional amendment.

What should we do now?
Start discussing the issue. No point here is fixed, this is all based on discussion.

disorganizer · Jun 16, 2002

reserved

disorganizer · Jun 16, 2002

my thoughts:
* no cabinet
* the president represents the country and organizes chat-times+writes summaries+posts logs+posts save.
* the chain of command for chat is based to election. if we get 10 nominees, a multiple choice election (or a normal one) determines the ranking of the playout. the 1st is top of coc, the 2nd second in place ...
* governors organize their provinces. they plan build queues and cities etc.
* no leaders. we have 1 thread for each department. the citizens discuss there. if they worked out a proposal together, they put it up for a vote to have it as instruction for the next playout.

Shaitan · Jun 16, 2002

Originally posted by disorganizer
my thoughts:
* governors organize their provinces. they plan build queues and cities etc.
* no leaders. we have 1 thread for each department. the citizens discuss there. if they worked out a proposal together, they put it up for a vote to have it as instruction for the next playout.

Why have governors? If a discussion thread can handle the needs of a department, why couldn't it do the same for a province?

No leaders is an interesting thought but it simply cannot work. There will be some departments with confusing, multiple proposals and votes. There will be others with no discussion or proposals at all. There has to be one person with ultimate responsibility to get the work done.

disorganizer · Jun 16, 2002

Ok, then lets say run them as a citizen group. Every1 can join, they elect their "member prime" or "moderator" each term. This "member prime" leads the discussions in the departmental citizen-group.
Same thought for governors:
The citizen group of a province consists of the citizens living there. They elect a "citizen prime" or "moderator" to organize discussions and queues.
But those positions can be changed with simple voting and dont hold any despotic action like a governmental position.

disorganizer · Jun 16, 2002

next thing would be if we really need 6 departments, as most of the actions overlap anyway.
we could have:
military
domestic
trade/FA/science/culture
for example. the discussions and decisions of the last department almost every time overlaps. so i merged the 4. maybe here the splitting in trade/FA and science/culture is sufficient.
this will lead us to 3-4 departments instead of 6+1

Immortal · Jun 16, 2002

My opinion is 4 different positions:

The Designated chat player (Representative)
The Governors (function the same as the domestic advisor and culture advisor)
Foreign affairs advisor (he also acts as trade advisor and military advisor)
Science advisor
Citizenry (vote on decisions)

The foreign advisor would post a chart similar to Chiefpaco's excellently done foreign affairs spreadsheet (kudos to you). After each turn, polls will be started if there is a request for anything (as long as it is seconded by one other citizen) Additionally, the trade table will be contructed, as will a short military readout.

Governors act by posting a thread for their specific province after each turn with a screenshot of each city in detail. Discussion commences here, polls will follow.

The science advisor must be a seperate position because he involves trade and city information. Polls for science queues and trades.

disorganizer · Jun 17, 2002

i would do the following maybe:
* President (representative funtion)
* Governors (domestic functions)
* Internal Advisor (science, happyness, education. all national issues)
* External Advisor (military, foreign affairs, trade)
* "Player in Duty". This is a elected list of persons who will be eligable for the playout in chat according to their rank. We could also implement the highest ranked to be president though.

Shaitan · Jun 17, 2002

Why would a president be needed?

disorganizer · Jun 17, 2002

just for represenatative "feature". its nice to have a president. to wave to him when he walks thru the streets.
thats why i said it would be ok to just call the #1 in COC-ranking president.

Shaitan · Jun 17, 2002

If the goal of this thread is to reduce government positions then having a position that is strictly for show is a bit odd.

disorganizer · Jun 17, 2002

well as i said: the head of COC could be called president as he would be the preferred player.
we could also call the pid for a chat the president if you like.

Immortal · Jun 17, 2002

ehh, I would leave the Pres as the designated player Dis. Seems like having the president for show is silly.

Bill_in_PDX · Jun 17, 2002

While I am opposed to this proposal in general, I think a very good idea coming from it is to explore the concept of consolidating some cabinet level functions such as Trade and Science, since they are so closely linked.

Bill
...in PDX

Cyc · Jun 17, 2002

I dunno, exactly. Is this thread prosing that we move closer to the fuedal system as opposed to staying a democracy. We could have the King with a couple of Lords, maybe a Princess. They could be the ruling class over the Governors, who oversee the serfs. It might work.
Or we could just reduce the number of departments to one. They all basically overlap as being part of the game. Yeah, then we would only have to elect one person. We wouldn't have any responsibilities after that. We could call it the Civ3 Condensed Democracy. Whadda ya think?

Shaitan · Jun 17, 2002

Cyc, you just gave me a freaky idea. What if we mimic the game government in the Forum? A monarchy when our civ is in a monarchy, republic for republic, etc. I don't know if it's even remotely feasible but it sounds neat.

Periods of anarchy would be interesting. :lol:

Cyc · Jun 17, 2002

I always loved the little film clips of the advisors in Civ2. Especially anarchy.

disorganizer · Jun 17, 2002

@Shatian: anarchy is easy. its just lika always in here. the rest would be difficult.

@Cyc:
this look like our proposal: condensig all departments to one is like having only a president/player in duty to organize things. the rest would be citizen discussion.

i still believe the "government" is not needed at all if we manage to exchange the departments with kind of citizen groups, just with elected "moderators" for discussions.

Chieftess · Jun 17, 2002

Originally posted by Cyc
I always loved the little film clips of the advisors in Civ2. Especially anarchy.

hehe..
"I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN! YOU KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN! I *TRIED* TO TELL YOU - NO MORE GOD'S PITY ON YOU - [*BOOM!*] (Elvis signing in the background the whole time)

Ok, my thoughts:

I think the origanal intent of this game was to have advisors like in Civ3, and it makes desicions much easier (and quicker). We shouldn't put it on one person (again, real life issues). We have to remember that this is a game, and it's not always going to fit the real life timeline.)

Personally, I think it's ok the way it is.

Chieftess · Jun 17, 2002

Originally posted by Shaitan
Cyc, you just gave me a freaky idea. What if we mimic the game government in the Forum? A monarchy when our civ is in a monarchy, republic for republic, etc. I don't know if it's even remotely feasible but it sounds neat.

Periods of anarchy would be interesting.

Only thing that could happen is:

a.) The designated player plays the way he/she wants.
b.) Everyone plays their own turns.

BTW, there technically are different govt. types on this forum.

Despotism/Communism: Random games, GOTM, Tourny, HOF games
Monarchy: Succession Games
Republic/Democracy: Demogame

We could have a Game of Anarchy. Have a group of people play each turn (a different person per turn) without any discussion between them.

reduce governmental positions (PPO discussion 2)

Deity

Deity

Deity

der Besucher

Deity

Deity

Deity

Deity

der Besucher

Deity

der Besucher

Deity

Deity

Grumpy Submariner

Looking for the door...

der Besucher

Looking for the door...

Deity

Moderator

Moderator

Similar threads