Government Structure (Strider's/Daveshack's proposal)

[Octavian X]

ravensfire has an well-written bit that deals with all the controversial aspects of the game that have been fought over for so long, and there is some concensus that it's a better plan. Additionally, I've only noticed Strider strenously opposing the proposals. This is as close to majority rule as we'll get.

Since our March deadline is obviously approaching, why don't we start off the game with ravenfire's rules? It'll be a test month - the new government strucutre should be given a chance to stand on it's own feet. At the end of March, we can have a final referendum on this subject, on traditional vs. alternative, which is when we'll also hopefully have greater participation coinciding with the beginning of the game.

It's unfair to make a decision on goverment strucutre, anyhow, for two big reasons - the alternate government hasn't been given a test run (which it, in all due fairness, deserves). An actual demonstration will allow us to test the merits of the new system, for comparison to the old one. Proponents and opponents can conclusively point to weaknesses in the system, and we'll be able to have a better debate.

Aslo, because we haven't got a full compleament of players paying attention at present, as many, myself included, tend to tune these debates out.

 

[DaveShack]

Why? Because the problems I am thinking of is not problems with the rules, but problems with our citizens, leaders, etc.

We need to concentrate on ending the fights, bringing in more citizens, organizing the demogame better, and many other things that have nothing to do with the system.

I think it is good for us to have meaningful conversations on disagreements, so what you're referring to for ending fights must be the personal stuff. That is easy to fix, and looks like it will be fixed, by our friends the mods.

On attracting citizens, why do you suppose the marketing industry is so much in love with the word new? Compare these statements:

• Come join the demogame -- same thing as the last 5 but we promise it will be fun
• NEW! Be one of the first to try the new demogame! New civ version, new organization, and new players like yourself!

On organizing the demogame better, I'm aiming for better organized information, discussions with a purpose, and a decision making flow instead of 100's of ad-hoc decisions made without a framework.

 

[Chieftess]

Let's put up 2 acceptance polls (the first being linked to the second).

1 - "Do you approve of Daveshack's government branch amendments?"
yes/no

2 - "How should we go about the 2 rulesets?"

Daveshack's and Strider's plan for 1 month then vote on who's is best
Use Daveshack's plan
Use Strider's plan.

 

[Black_Hole]

Im not for changing the government mid game. Lets just get working on your game long government.

 

[Chieftess]

Well, we already polled this thing once, and got nowhere. How about this comprimise then?

DG6 - we use X ruleset.
DG7 - we use Y ruleset.

 

[Black_Hole]

Well, we already polled this thing once, and got nowhere. How about this comprimise then?

DG6 - we use X ruleset.
DG7 - we use Y ruleset.

sorta the idea, how bout this:
DG6 - we use alternate government
DG7 - we vote between alterante government and traditional

so if this thing doesnt work then we will only use it for 1 DG

 

[Strider]

sorta the idea, how bout this:
DG6 - we use alternate government
DG7 - we vote between alterante government and traditional

so if this thing doesnt work then we will only use it for 1 DG

Nice compromise.... bad chance of that ever happening. I'll make certain of that.

 

[Strider]

I think it is good for us to have meaningful conversations on disagreements, so what you're referring to for ending fights must be the personal stuff. That is easy to fix, and looks like it will be fixed, by our friends the mods.

On attracting citizens, why do you suppose the marketing industry is so much in love with the word new? Compare these statements:

• Come join the demogame -- same thing as the last 5 but we promise it will be fun
• NEW! Be one of the first to try the new demogame! New civ version, new organization, and new players like yourself!

On organizing the demogame better, I'm aiming for better organized information, discussions with a purpose, and a decision making flow instead of 100's of ad-hoc decisions made without a framework.

New players will not be interested in the rules, just the game. (and by organization, I meant the "Discussion Registry etc." things... basicly department and forum organization.)

 

[Nobody]

sorta the idea, how bout this:
DG6 - we use alternate government
DG7 - we vote between alterante government and traditional

so if this thing doesnt work then we will only use it for 1 DG

We could play this demogame on a tiny map, and accelerated production, so its a fast game then we can vote what is the better goverment. then we can have a normal big demogame after that. of course we would use the "alt-ter-native" rules for the fast one.

 

[Ashburnham]

Nice compromise.... bad chance of that ever happening. I'll make certain of that.

Strider, you're really not helping. While others are trying to find some way to get this game started by March 1, you seem content to sit back and cry out how everybody's wrong but you.

Nomination threads are scheduled to open in 3 days. We need to figure out how we're going to run this game. You can sit there, whine, and sulk; or you can be constructive and help establish the structure of the next Demogame.

 

[Ashburnham]

Im not for changing the government mid game. Lets just get working on your game long government.

I think we may have to use the first Term as a "testing ground" for what government we want to use. Remember, DaveShack's proposal has yet to prove itself in an actual game.

I suggest we use DaveShack's proposal, in its pure form, for the first Term. Luckily, not much happens when we have one city and maybe a warrior, so we can focus on how the government runs. As we watch the progress of the game, we can decide how we should structure the government for the rest of the game: whether we use DaveShack's government, a traditional government, or a hybrid of the two. As for now, I'm afraid it's too late to hammer out some sort of compromise before March 1.

 

[Black_Hole]

We should vote whether to keep alternate or go traditional half way through 1st term,
and strider i really appreciate your great help here...

 

[Black_Hole]

I think we may have to use the first Term as a "testing ground" for what government we want to use. Remember, DaveShack's proposal has yet to prove itself in an actual game.

I suggest we use DaveShack's proposal, in its pure form, for the first Term. Luckily, not much happens when we have one city and maybe a warrior, so we can focus on how the government runs. As we watch the progress of the game, we can decide how we should structure the government for the rest of the game: whether we use DaveShack's government, a traditional government, or a hybrid of the two. As for now, I'm afraid it's too late to hammer out some sort of compromise before March 1.

im afraid its gonna be hard to get any constitution made before march 1st
Times a ticken
about 1 day 20 hours till nominations will start (GMT time)
heck, february is 2 days short, so technically if we were going from days from the end of teh month(that option won), we should be starting nominations in 20 hours...

 

[Strider]

Strider, you're really not helping. While others are trying to find some way to get this game started by March 1, you seem content to sit back and cry out how everybody's wrong but you.

Nomination threads are scheduled to open in 3 days. We need to figure out how we're going to run this game. You can sit there, whine, and sulk; or you can be constructive and help establish the structure of the next Demogame.

We should vote whether to keep alternate or go traditional half way through 1st term,
and strider i really appreciate your great help here...

Both of you are doing what? Making half-ass suggestions and "compromises" so unfair that I have no other choice than to tell you "hell no?" The only thing I've seen from either of you is complaints about the start date or how we need to figure something out.

How about for once one of you be constructive, sense you seem so intent to get me to do it. I've done my share of work with the tradational government, also likely introduced a few articles that will be used inside of the next game.

No, this is where I draw the line. From now on, you can keep your compromises, because I'm not going to even bother wasting my time on another half-assed suggestion. From now on, no more cooperation or help from me, unless it has something to do with the tradational government in it's true form.

 

[Chieftess]

This is the kind of thing that could potentially be argued on for months, and STILL not get hammered out. In fact, this very idea's been floating around for months. From the looks of things, there isn't even much discussion on the issue. The constitution is supposed to be by the people, but instead it's being decided by a few people. Because we can't seem to get anything going on this (and it's been 3 days -- it's reached the limit), this is what I'm going to do:

Moderator Action:

We will use the Alternate Government on a trial basis for 2 terms to see how it works, then we'll switch over to the traditional government for the duration of the game. If we like the alternate government, then we can use that as a basis for future games. I think the reason there's so much angst is that it's a change from what the demogame was designed for. We'll use the first 2 months as an experiment phase. Think of it as different government forms in Civ3. The rest of the constitution can remain the same. The only difference is a few offices between the 2 choices.


I know there will be those who hate this decision, but there'll be those who hate going one way or the other, or no decision at all. The fact is that we can't go on for months debating what roles people should take, and spend more time debating than playing the actual game. It's like debating something that you aren't even going to get to do. So, we'll go ahead with 2 months of Daveshack's plan, then Strider's plan for the government, then we can vote on which ones we like.

Now, let's start voting on the other amendments to the constitution.

 

[Black_Hole]

strider I really think it would be better if you cooperate, really what would be better an alternate governemnt? or no government? owell we have 20 or 44 hours, doesnt matter anymore... Its overtime

 

[Black_Hole]

CT, you have really passed your moderator rights. I could have sworn this would happen, and it did. I thought we played a democracy game, I can somewhat live with the timelimit, but thiis is WAY too much. We cant have one person make our constitution!!!! the 'd' in DG should stand for dictator now.
Now you are going to want to ban me, but heh I said this as nice as I could.

 

[Chieftess]

The reason I did this is because nothing is getting done. I've put up discussions, and even discussions to finalize the constitution, but they're left with 2-4 day gaps of no discussion what-so-ever. From DG1 to this one, the discussion time has gotten longer and longer, and there comes a time when too much discussion is too long. This was already polled atleast once. Think of this as arbitration. Maybe next demogame we should just vote on one of the previous demogame constitutions to use just to save us the trouble of months of debate. Starting with DG3-DG4, discussion time grew to 2 months, 2 1/2 months. Do you really want to spend up to 4 months debating how you should play for the next 4 months? The demogame was based around discussions, polls and ingame actions of a civ game. The origanal designers of the demogame never intended for there to be months worth of discussions. In fact, discussion on the constitution was even done during the game itself in DG1 and 2. I'm doing you a favor by atleast giving you a choice. I could have just gone with the old style president, VP, and advisors. There are plenty of those who would like to get the game started, and I think the lack of discussion is a testiment to the debate fatigue of designing the constitution. It's something that's done every game, and people get tired of it, but the game has to move on. Don't blame me for your troubles -- I gave you 2 full months to make a ruleset, I gave plenty of discussion and polls. You had plenty of chances to voice your opinion and help construct a constitution. (by you, I'm talking about everyone). I'm not about to let the demogame die because a vocal few doesn't like what everyone else thinks.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I'm not about to let the demogame die because a vocal few doesn't like what everyone else thinks.

Ironic statement there. This is usually the point where I would self-righteously excuse myself from this game for good, but I think I'm gonna stick around and see how this whole pathetic scene shakes out.

Black_Hole, you have proven yourself worthy to carry the torch for me on this topic. I think everyone at CFC knows what I would say here, and quite frankly, I am tired of repeating myself.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Also, is there any plan to move to a new forum? I don't want to call too much attention to misplaced efforts, as I see how easy it is to remove the vocal opposition.

When are we going to get a clue?????