A Modest Proposal for Radical Change in our Government...

[Octavian X]

[pre]D. The Executive branch is responsible for determining
and implementing the will of the People. It is headed
by the President who shall be the primary Designated
Player. The President shall take direction from a
council of leaders and from other elected and appointed
officials via the turnchat instruction thread. The President
shall be tasked with control of worker actions.
1. The Minister of Domestic Affairs shall be
responsible for all domestic initiatives, worker allocation,
as well as the distribution of funds, as prescribed by law.
2. The Minister of Foreign Affairs shall be responsible
for matters involving treaties with foreign nations,
as prescribed by law.
3. The Minister of Defense shall be responsible for all
military strategy and troop activities, as
prescribed by law.
4. The Minister of Trade shall be responsible for all
trade, domestic and foreign, and the use of resources,
as perscibed by law.
5. The Minister of Science shall be responsible for all tech
acquisition, as prescribed by law.
6. The Minister of Culture shall be responsible for the construction
of wonders, as well as the analysis and maintenance of cultural
borders. This official shall also be responsible for monitoring
Japanatica's cultural level against that of all rival nations. [/pre]

The all too familiar Article D of our Constitution, for reference.

One will notice that this article divides up the duties of the Executive Branch, with a sort of seperation of powers clearly visible.

I am forced to wonder, though - if the executive branch is tasked with acting on the will of the people, why do we divide the branches so? Instead of dividing up these powers of the executive branch, couldn't everything be run more effectively if they actually had to work together?

What I'm proposing, I guess, is a radical change to our very governmental structure. I think (and, I sincerely hope) that everything could be done much more effectively if the governors and ministers were charged with actually creating a unified turn-playing plan, not a hodgepodge of potentially conflicting turn chat instructions as is currently the case.

Each minister first leads general discussion on topics concerning his area of specialty, while governors discuss plans for the provinces. Then, either in public of private, either in chatrooms or the forums, the ministers, governors, annd President, hammer out a single plan, one united body of instructions, ready for the next turn playing session.

Granted, it would slow down our turn playing rate - perhaps down to one session a week. But, it is my belief that one good plan played once a week is better than two groups of disjointed ones twice a week. Additionally, we could probably even fit a greater number of turns into one session - maybe up to twenty.

Ultimately, what I'm attempting is an idealisic, perhaps foolish, goal. The atmosphere around these forums isn't exactly friendly. My hope is that such a system would promote cooperation, maybe even friendly cooperation at that. Granted, you've no responsibility to listen to a once active demogamer-turned-inactive lurker. I thank everybody for giving this a thought at the very least.

 

[Ashburnham]

It is indeed an idealistic goal, Octavian. It's also a goal that is counter to what this game is actually about, which is creating a pseudo-government to play a game of Civ3. If real life, governmental organizations bicker, they disagree, they fight for influence, they try to get their goals accomplished even if others disagree. In that sense, I believe the Demogame works very well, because we all do what I just listed. True, your changes could bring about a smoother DG, but it would be an artificial one; one that runs counter to what we are all here for.

I hate to disagree with you, because you are clearly trying to change the game for the better. But I believe that part of the fun of the game is the friction that emerges from the various debates and disagreements we all have. It can get carried away sometimes, but taking that aspect of the game away would make for a lesser Demogame.

 

[Cyc]

I have to agree with Ashburnham. I might add that getting all to agree to one plan and have it approved with the WOTP may slow us down more than your estimate. Also, I believe playing 1 Turn Chat at 20 turns is much worse than 2 Turn Chats at 10 turns each. There's very little room for adjustment of the "hammered out" plan.

 

[Provolution]

Surprisingly, I agree with both Cyc and Ashburnham here. What makes this a better experience than singleplayer or PBEM ? It is the politics, the drama the intrigue.
In fact the doctrinal planning used in the beginning of the term remedied most of the problems, now a few halting dogs in the corner of the dirty cafeteria are wimpering about "too old plans", when they are in fact based on the same military units and technologies as it was 40 turns back. Well, the plans are not obsolete, in fact they are improved by Tugela having coal, and the same limited infrastructure.

I see the few people boycotting the polls are now whimpering by sour one or two liners, where the majority helping out in forming and polling the plans are happy, as we preceded the ad hovc crisis debates by fixed solutions. Whatever you do, you cannot please anyone, and as I guess they felt great in putting down my initially failed Ringi reform, I feel equally great in having remedied a problem and made many good players a part in forming the solution. If everyone was happy, it would not be a demogame.

So regardless of the performance, some of these will continue to attack me for the slightest marginal reason and try to make this game into.... quote one of my three lead opponents....

I won't do **** until we get a war.

reminds me of the theme song from "Team America World Police"

 

[Ashburnham]

I see the few people boycotting the polls are now whimpering by sour one or two liners, where the majority helping out in forming and polling the plans are happy, as we preceded the ad hovc crisis debates by fixed solutions. Whatever you do, you cannot please anyone, and as I guess they felt great in putting down my initially failed Ringi reform, I feel equally great in having remedied a problem and made many good players a part in forming the solution. If everyone was happy, it would not be a demogame.

So regardless of the performance, some of these will continue to attack me for the slightest marginal reason and try to make this game into.... quote one of my three lead opponents....

Can't you ever post in a thread without whining about your critics, Provo?

 

[Chieftess]

Each minister first leads general discussion on topics concerning his area of specialty, while governors discuss plans for the provinces. Then, either in public of private, either in chatrooms or the forums, the ministers, governors, annd President, hammer out a single plan, one united body of instructions, ready for the next turn playing session.

Now, isn't that what we used to do? Every elected advisor post their own thread? (we did this in DG1 and had 2 TCs a week).

 

[Cyc]

Now, isn't that what we used to do? Every elected advisor post their own thread? (we did this in DG1 and had 2 TCs a week).

No, I don't believe so, CT. There was definitely more harmony to over-all operations, but we didn't restrict the operations of the government to this format. What Octavian wants can still be done (in my dreams...), but I believe if we MADE people do it by Law, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back. And I know how you like camels.

 

[blackheart]

When pigeons can fly I will support this, er, oh wait, they already can

 

[Black_Hole]

This isnt a very good idea.
First we will have 1 TC every week
It will be pretty hard to agree on somehting like this
Leaders should want to work together not be forced to, this is one of the things I look for in elections

 

[Chieftess]

No, I don't believe so, CT. There was definitely more harmony to over-all operations, but we didn't restrict the operations of the government to this format. What Octavian wants can still be done (in my dreams...), but I believe if we MADE people do it by Law, it would be the straw that broke the camel's back. And I know how you like camels.

Then why is eyrei the one with the camel avatar?

 

[Epimethius]

Provolution, I think that the only thing worse than your rambling off topic to insult me like that is the fact that you did it while I was unable to reply.

Honorable Japanatica indeed.

 

[Octavian X]

I've been meaning to reply, but I was prevented from doing so due to a loss of internet service. Never fear, though, for I have returned.

Anyway, the gist of the idea has been stated: I want to legislate cooperation. Smooth the wrinkles, etc. Governments, contrary to Ashburnham's stated opinion, don't operate with different ministries doing what they want with as much infighting as exists here - generally, though some battles may flare up occasionally, they work smoothly under a generally guided, unified direction. This is since those goverments serve one elected head directly with strong powers to lead the nation, contrary to our model of a weak President - and I think proposals to concentrate greater powers in the President would go over worse than this one.

What I'm looking for is the government to provide one direction, not a myraid of ones. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the leaders to conference and approve one plan. It's worked before, at least in my view, when in DG1 and DG2, with the institution of council votes - the ministers could vote on various things, generally little ones, but were able to agree on things and get jobs done nonetheless.

And, I ask, what's wrong with slowing things down in the game? We rush through this game at such a panicked pace that I would not be suprised if we scared away some would-be players who didn't like the fast pace. What I'm offering is an alternative to our current setup, which encourages speed at the cost of truly thoughtful decisions. I think a slightly slower game is a good price to pay for a game that's played better.