DG4 Govt: Permissive vs Restrictive framework

One of the early decision we need to make is to decide if we want a loose, permissive framework (DG3), or a more detailed, restrictive framework (DG2).

Discussion will be open for about 24 hours. This topic will be polled.

-- Ravensfire

My only demogame experiance is DG3. I like the current ruleset, it just needs a little more detail filled in at the Code of Laws and Procedures levels.

I think we should take the old DG2 ruleset and make all amendments we find necessary and remove laws that are completely unnecessary. We could even start a thread where we make suggestions for amendments to the DG2 ruleset, which would be polled separately, until we had a finalized version that we could adopt for DG4. Basically, I would be in favor of a ruleset that is quite a bit more restrictive and above all detailed than our current one but perhaps a bit less restrictive than the DG2 one.

I think a tight(er) ruleset is what I want. At this moment in time, with DG3 rules the DP/president can do what he/she wants without anyone able to stop him (term 3) and no fear of being penalised for it. I think this is moving experienced players away from the game as they can advise, post, poll, instruct what they want, it can in the end all be decided by the DP / President.

I know I a exeggerating, but I want to point out what I don't like. As an example I give you the SS Parts: Should We Allow DP Queue Override? poll. I want to make sure that Instructions are instructions and they are to be carried out to the letter (if possible). Any elected official who posts their instuctions are expected to have thought about them and discussed them if necessary and the "fruits of their pen/keyboard" are to be considered "the will of the people" and no DP or President should 'ignore' them.

I am also in favor of having a 24-hour deadline for instructions, so the people can comment on them and convince the elected official that some parts are "in error" and propose changes. This is a Democracy game, not an "Aristocracy game" in which the leaders decide and the people follow.

And if someone posts illegal instructions, the DP breaks instructions or another "crime" is committed it always should be investigated. I am not in favor of harsh penalties, but injustice should be dealt with.

This requires stricter rules.

(I tried to not make this posting of my points of view a Donsig or whoever bashing, but since Donsig's term pointed out to us that loose rules have nasty side-effects I can't leave that term unmentioned.)

Just as I can't leave the long line of Presidencies of Chieftess unmentioned. Her continual neglect of the Provinces and cities that I had influence with, and the flagrant ignoring of my posts and instructions concerning these entities should not go unmentioned. Because of the way that she was allowed to run amuck at her discrepency, a barrage of PI's had to be brought up to make her pull the reigns in, so to speak. All of this took place within the DG2 restrictions of "The Three Books". Had we not had these restrictions, any effort by a Governor, Mayor , or individual citizen who wanted to put a stop to abuse would have been futile. I am definitely in favor of a more "restrictive" approach to a government framework. The system we used in DG3 was a failed attempt to squelsh the PI system. It didn't work. It just sat there like a wet dish rag.

We need to stear back to the rules and regulations that protect the little guy. Keep the elites under control.

we need the restrictive ruleset. We seem to uncounsciiously follow certain rules from the old dg constution as it is why not just re-institute it

Don't worry about donsig bashing. I'm a big boy. But.... was the reason *I could do what I wanted* due to the fact that we have a permissive ruleset in DG3 or was it due to the fact that the citizens did not make their wishes known? Despite what you all think of my presidency I never went against the stated will of the people. Look back at our attempt to build Copernicus in Memphis(edit: I meant Copernicus not Memphis!). I thought that by delaying Copernicus to build a cathedral we'd lose Memphis. I would have built the cathedral after Copernicus. But the people spoke up and I did it their way. The people did not speak out against an Aztec war until it had started. It does not matter how detailed or loose the rules are, if the people don't speak the same problems will appear time and again. We went through it in DG1 (the veto and PI #6), DG2 (the Chieftess PIs) and DG3 (term 3). Making a restrictive ruleset will not solve the problem. In fact it will tend to make it even more difficult to elicit the *will of the people*.

I am personally in favor of a permissive style of framework - just about anything can be done if it advances the game, reflects the will of the people and a reasonable basis for the decision can be given.

Unfortunately, it has been demonstrated time and again that, as a group, we are not capable of functioning under such a framework. Fionn makes the comment that we unconciously follow a restrictive style, this is accurate. We as a group are not capable of consistenly functioning in a peaceful, reasonable manner under a permissive framework.

For that reason alone, I prefer a more restrictive framework.

<topic shift>
Part of my reasoning for creating these threads in the sequence I will be is to force a disconnect from the older, previous systems and examine all ideas brought forth. Of course, the experience we have had with any idea is invaluable, and should be shared. I'm hoping that in DG4, we won't have the "But we always did it that way in DG1/2/3" whine.
</topic shift>

-- Ravensfire

quoting donsig:
We went through it in DG1 (the veto and PI #6), DG2 (the Chieftess PIs) and DG3 (term 3).

donsig, unless I'm misunderstanding you on this quote, you're totally wrong with your statement. I did express my opinion. Over and over again, but to no avail. I even complained to you as Governor, who promised to look into the situation, as the problem just continued because it was out of your hands. If I had been silent all the while and then got upset and filed charges, I could see your point. But you know as well as I do that was not the case. The little guy needs some form of protection against people who just do what they damned well please.

Originally posted by donsig
(..)due to the fact that we have a permissive ruleset in DG3 or was it due to the fact that the citizens did not make their wishes known? (..)

Click to expand...

That is why I want the Instructions, or call them Instruction-designs, posted at least 24 hours prior to a T/C. That way, if an instruction is not according to the "will of the people" there is still time to debate, discuss and poll it and the responsable elected official can adjust these instructions.

@Cyc: Yes, I know you made your opinions known back then, just as bootstoots made his opinions known during term 3 of this game. My point is that after three demogames we still do not have a way to explicitly determine *the will of the people*. One thread common to all three demogames is the fact that issues have arisen in all three games where we were not all of one frame of mind. We never argue about the things we all agree on, it is when we disagree that we have troubles. We still don't have a consensus on what a decent poll is or what legal instructions are. Since we don't have even that much how can we begin to address the rights of the minority?

@ Rik Meleet: It matters not when the dealine is for posting instructions. If the people haven't spoken how is a leader to post instructions according to the *will of the people* either before or after a deadline?!?

Originally posted by donsig
@ Rik Meleet: It matters not when the dealine is for posting instructions. If the people haven't spoken how is a leader to post instructions according to the *will of the people* either before or after a deadline?!?

Click to expand...

I think there are two seperate issues to your question donsig. Yes, I have a topic planned soley on "Legal Instructions", but I'll digress a bit here. The first issue is if a leader does not seek the will of the people, the second is if the people do not express their will.

Just something to think about for a week or so.

-- Ravensfire

The Will of the People

In terms of judging the will of the people, a poll is a definite hardcopy of just that. I spent a lot of time writing in DG1 trying to get the Poll Guidelines up and running. Problem was people just looked at it and said, "Yeah, whatever..." Eklektikos took up the torch, but it soon died out to when it was found out that people would have to actually think to devise new guidelines and regulations, or even determine which were which. Then FortyJ tried to pick up the torch again in DG2, but again it was to difficult to get the population motivated. We had a rivival of Eklektikos' citizens group for the Polling Standards Commision this DG3. We all know the results of that. The Poll issue could and should have been taken care of a year ago here in the Demogame forums, but it wasn't, and it probably never will be. So let's move beyond that.

You've brought up the question of what is a legal instruction. I have spoken about this often, I'm sure you know my feelings on the issue. You can alter the question to - "Does the will of the people factor into a legal Instruction?" Well, of course it does. But that's not the same as the basic mechanics of the original question. So by adhering to the all important rule that a Leader must adhere to the "Will of the People", you can put one and one together and come up with two. If Leaders post the legal Instructions, they are doing so within the confines of the will of the people. But the question that that seems to pop up in a lot of discussions is similar to the one Ravensfire just brought up.

"The first issue is if a leader does not seek the will of the people, the second is if the people do not express their will."

This entire question was addressed and covered completely in the Constitution for the first Demogame and brought over to DG2. Simply stated, the Leader would actively determine the will of the people by discussion and polls. If the people,s opinion came to a tie, the Leader could break that tie with their own vote. If, on the other hand, the people gave no opinion, then it was up to the Leader to determine the best course of action for the people. If the Leader didn't follow the will of the people, then the Leader was at fault. I don't see the problem here. This has all been done before.

Wait a minute I can see a problem. Over the last twenty months, or so, enough people have whined about this or that causing so many changes in the rules that no one really knew at any given time just what the rules were. I even saw Shaitan buffalo his way through a couple of problems that I didn't want to interject on. Because of the whining and complaints (mostly by new comers) the rules and regulations became so massive, that the whining started to be about those, not the problems they solved. It wasn't that the rules were wrong really, it was that they were restricting the whiners in a way they didn't want to be restricted. You people nailed your own coffins shut by doing this.

I'm not saying improving the Constution is a bad thing. I welcome the right changes.

But some of the things you are addressing now would not be a problem if the original intent had not been changed. I can see improving or expanding the original intent, yes. But to me, it seems we have thrown that away in hopes of justifying our own wants.

As I have stated in a previous thread, I am more in favor of a restrictive ruleset. This is mainly because of what has been said several times already: we can't function under a permissive ruleset and in DG3, some of us still acted as if the restricive ruleset was still in place.

The problem with DG2 was that when the rules were written, there were certain sections that were somewhat ambiguous and could have been interpreted either way. We have to take great pains to ensure that there are as few loose ends as possible, and if some sneak through we remain vigilant about fixing them.

I like how this is going so far, Ravensfire. Good work!

Originally posted by Cyc



This entire question was addressed and covered completely in the Constitution for the first Demogame and brought over to DG2. Simply stated, the Leader would actively determine the will of the people by discussion and polls. If the people,s opinion came to a tie, the Leader could break that tie with their own vote. If, on the other hand, the people gave no opinion, then it was up to the Leader to determine the best course of action for the people. If the Leader didn't follow the will of the people, then the Leader was at fault. I don't see the problem here. This has all been done before.

Click to expand...

One thing I have noticed is that there are far fewer polls than there have been in times past. This is one of the reasons the "will of the people" has been such an enigma.

We should devote a good amount of time to polling standards during these discussions. This way, we can enact proper procedure into law instead of leaving it to a well-intentioned citizen's group.

I think the question this thread poses and the answers it elicits don't do much to get us a working legal framework. It seems the discussion inevitably gets down into details that are best left to be answered when we start discussing actual wording of the legal documents. We can continue to talk theory here, or make decisions when we start working on the documents.

Originally posted by zorven
I think the question this thread poses and the answers it elicits don't do much to get us a working legal framework. It seems the discussion inevitably gets down into details that are best left to be answered when we start discussing actual wording of the legal documents. We can continue to talk theory here, or make decisions when we start working on the documents.

Click to expand...

While it is true that this is a fairly abstract question, it is one that needs to be answered by those participating in the demogame. While there have been quite a few people posting here, it is quite a bit less than the total number of people in the DG.

We need to determine what the overall preference is, then develop our structure accordingly. The decision made here will direct many discussions in the future, and give us guidance when getting down to the details.

This isn't going to be the absolute fastest process possible, but we are not pressed for time. By spending some time answering these questions, when it comes time to actually put the structure in writing, it's just a question of verbage.

For those in IT - doesn't this sound like "documenting user processes" and "gathering requirements"? Gah - I thought I was done with that <insert censored remark here>

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc
The Will of the People

"The first issue is if a leader does not seek the will of the people, the second is if the people do not express their will."

This entire question was addressed and covered completely in the Constitution for the first Demogame and brought over to DG2. Simply stated, the Leader would actively determine the will of the people by discussion and polls. If the people,s opinion came to a tie, the Leader could break that tie with their own vote. If, on the other hand, the people gave no opinion, then it was up to the Leader to determine the best course of action for the people. If the Leader didn't follow the will of the people, then the Leader was at fault. I don't see the problem here. This has all been done before.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good in theory, Cyc, but what happens in practice? At the start of term three in DG3 it was as plain as day that the Aztecs would build a city in space we wanted, that we'd end up with blocking units within the Aztecs borders and then we'd get a *surprise* and *unexpected* pop-up window asking us to withdraw our troops. I pmmed the military leader asking that plans be drawn up for an Aztec war. The military leader did not respond. Neither did he issue orders to remove our units from foreign territory. I had also pmmed the foreign leader asking him to ascertain *the will of the people* regarding a possible war against the Aztecs. The FA leader opened the thread. In the absense of a poll on the matter all I had to go on was what was posted in that thread. Not only was there no great outcry against the proposed war, there was actually support for it. As far as I could tell *the will of the people* was for the war. I actively sought the will of the people through their elected leaders and when I acted on it I was villified!

Even when leaders try to figure out what the people want, the people are not always forthcoming. When a large group of citizens decide to forego posting in the forums in favor of making their opinions known at a *chat* it becomes even more complicated to determine *the will of the people*! What do we do, devise restrictive rules for legal instructions and polling in both the forums and the *chat*? Well, we'll need a way to combine forum input with chat input. Oh, shouldn't we figure out some way to make sure some guy isn't posting in the forums and giving input in the chat then? Otherwise this guy get's his vote counted twice!

Stated the way this thread was opened, I guess I'd have to be for "more restrictive", but it would be a mistake to read too much into that. We need well-defined descriptions of the responsibilities of each position and objective measurements (gah, did I really say that about a game ) to determine if people are performing their roles.

If I'm understanding some of the recent traffic (mostly this month) I'm starting to lean toward rules like "if foreign units cross into our territory, the FA and/or MA must open a discussion about possible war with that opponent." Even though it cuts into the turns a President will be able to play, I'm also leaning towards laws like "if foreign troops enter our territory without a RoP, and there are no explicit instructions for handling this situation, play must stop so the appropriate discussions can be held."

We got a good start on the polling standards commission, and then it just died out. What about making it more meaningful, like "at least 75% of polls posted by a leader must be rated good and fair", and posting candidates' past records on discussion and poll quality, so the people can make an informed choice?

I pretty much agree with what DS has said in the post above, although I don't think the ideas in his last paragraph will fly. It will be too much work for any one person to handle, and making it a personal responsibility would be kind of humorous.

@donsig. Hey dude. I was on your side, remember? As far as I was concerned, you did nothing wrong other than ruffle the feathers of the new echelon at a chat. You followed the rules as far as you and I were aware. The Constitution supported your actions. I personally witnessed the wet dish rag laying there when people went to it for answers.

quoting donsig:
As far as I could tell *the will of the people* was for the war. I actively sought the will of the people through their elected leaders and when I acted on it I was villified!

The only problem I see here is the way you were treated by people that didn't understand the Constitution they blindly supported at the begining of the game. As President, you went to the people who you got advice from ( the cabinet ) seeking the will of the people through them (that's their job!). When that failed, you relied on the citizens thread you posted to seek the will of the people on your own. This attempt, no matter how sorrifull the response was, produced a result that in your eyes supported the war. You acted upon this. I don't see a problem here. The only major problem was with a few of your citizens who felt it was their job to tell the President what to do. That's the kind of thing I mentioned earlier. Too much whining and fast, on the fly changes to the rules because something didn't sit well with some rabble-rousers.

If you had indeed broken any of these non-existant laws, I would have joined the other side just because it would have been the right thing to do. But as usual, you know how to play this game, and I respect you for that.