all power to citizencry (PPO discussion 1)

[Chieftess]

I would suggest this though:

More power to the citizen's groups. Many citizens can't come to the chats (timezone, real life). Citizen's groups should be allowed to represent certain citizens, and present any votes that the citizens make. True, something will have to be done about citizens in multiple groups.

I propose a congress, where so many citizens elect 1 representative. Citizens can PM concerns, and the rep. can hold votes for their represented district. This is taken to the congress, and they can vote to pass a measure. This would go to the cabinate (which would act like the senate). The President can veto, but the people can overturn the veto by a 3/4 or 2/3 majority.

 

[disorganizer]

As i said already, the last turnchat were 4 turns without any problem.
So this will be 8-10 turns a week which is about 40 turn a month.
The game will be finished in about 1 Year and 2 Months.

 

[disorganizer]

btw: i think at the end the turns (especially in my games) will
a) tend to be boring cause nothing unexpectable happens
or
b) you need huge micromanagement.

if b) is the case, then we well anyways have to stop the chats early, as mircomanagement-tasks during chat will just take too long to implement.

maybe the "imitate game government" idea is not so bad at all (except anarchy, where the forum should stay as before).

a) monarchy and despotism:
the player has the last word on decisions. if decisions are missing, he decides (maybe asks his advisors). the titles of the departments should not be leaders in this phase, but be "royal advisor"
ppl elect the advisors and the king. a kind of elected monarchy.
only major decisions (a list of those to be defined) are taken to forum. the others are decided by the player, he may ask the advisors or citizens in chat.

b) republic:
the "department-leaders" are a cabinet. the cabinet decides. the president has nothing to say any more.
major discussions (list to be defined) are taken to forum, all others spot-voted in chat by cabinet.

c) democracy:
the "public advisors" make plans and organize discussions for their area of work. the citizens vote for the plans. all decisions in the game have to be brought to the forum, if not otherwise decided by citizenry (by for example a list of "allowed direct actions").

maybe this idea is really workable. it would bring the following benefit:
max-pace at the beginning of the game.
medium pace between republic and democracy.
slow pac from democracy on.
which seems to reflect the needs of the game the best.

 

[Shaitan]

A new suggestion from donsig and supported by me has been introduced to the new Constitution thread. Please check it out and comment. It greatly increases the power and responsibility of the citizens.

 

[Strider]

I think things are fine the way they are.... It should be the leaders responibility to try to include the citizens in the nations affairs. We give elections they should try to pick the BEST candiadate. If they know someone has in the past not included the citizens in their decisions then they should not vote for the person. Also they have the power to impeach an elected official if they believe he/she is not doing their job correctly. We gave the citizens a fair percent of the power and responsibility. They just either don't use it correctly or don't use it at all. Also if we increased their responsibility they'd have to do more, which then we might lose some citizens. I know that once I'm done running for elections (which next term might be my last term) I don't want added responabilitys.

 

[Paalikles]

imho, the democracy of athens (direct), which allowed all free citizens to cast a vote, was a good idea, but suffered - as to not being democratic enoguh and being somewhat ineffective.
Indirect, or representative democracy will be morre efficient.
People of Phoenatica are not able (nor willing?) to concentrate on each and EVERY aspect of the empire. Therefore, we need representatives.

What I am getting at:
I included my referance to Athens because I found this to be the closest example of the kind of democracy disorganizer seem to want. Whileas I probably rush to my conclusion; I am merely stating that a direct democracy will be too complicated AND take up too much time.

BTW: Who'll play the game? Should there be one designated player? Should each active citizen take turns on playing the game?

@CT: Damn.I'd sooner be subverted by another civ than play the demogame for 41/2 years...

 

[disorganizer]

@paa:
* if you read the thread, elections for the coc would be held (well, another of one of our 3 threads, but you will find it)
* ahtenian democracy suffered from long distance and the problem of how ppl could vote (organizational problem). we have a forum. every citizen can vote in a maximum of 48 hours on every issue. this is what athen did not have.
* 4 1/2 years was a miscalculation if you read a bit more in detail ;-)
* this is done in the civ2 demo and on other demogames, where no turn-chat is used. why not do it here if it worked before?

 

[Shaitan]

Civ2 demogame has only 10 participants.

 

[disorganizer]

it had more until multiplayer arrived.
wait till ptw is here...

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
it had more until multiplayer arrived.
wait till ptw is here...

Yeah.

 

[Paalikles]

@disorganizer: I am not saying that I don't like your thoughts on this subject.

must admit not to have read the entire thread...sorry

mulitplayer will probably do not much good to this game

I'll edit this post or repost when I have read the thread.