Citizen Pulse : Are you satisfied with the democracy?

[Cyc]

Cyc shakes his head and says, "Can you repeat the question...?"

This thread is to get citizen comments on the democracy aspects of the game. Are you satisfied with how the decisions are being made? Are the right things being discussed and polled? Are your opinions treated as valued input by the elected leadership?

Please share any thoughts you have on how to improve this or future games.

I'm pretty much satisfied with the way decisions are made. Heck, I like a good debate. Most often, if the arguements, mudslinging, proposals, and useless rhetoric are based on Japanatica (or any other DG Naton by extension), it works for me. Political correctness is one of the downfalls of our DGs. We elect Leaders. They should lead. If you want your opinion to be dominant, get yourself elected.

You don't like a 6 chat a Month game? Too bad. The person who got themselves elected is playing that way. You elected him. He's not breaking any rules.

You don't like doctrines for the Military? Too bad. The person who got themselves elected thinks they are needed for the betterment of the game. He's not breaking any rules.

You don't like the idea of some screwball getting rich by sending your child to the Middle East to die? Too bad. The majority of people voted him into Office. Live with it.

Let the Leaders lead. The people that didn't get themselves elected have a voice that can be heard in the discussions and polls. If your a Leader that doesn't know how to hold discussions, you'd better learn. If you don't know how to post polls, you are lacking a major Leadership quality. And if you think you can express yourself on a policy decision by posting a one line post, you are fooling yourself and wasting my time. I want to see a couple of paragraphs. Paragraphs which do not include getting a leg up on your bickering partner.

If we come up with a new form of Government to ease tensions, increase the flow of the game, and at the same time make us adhere to the rules better, fine. Works for me. But then don't hog tie the Leaders with political correctness. Let them do there job. You elected them... you didn't elect someone to do your bidding, you elected someone to Lead. True, listening to your constituents is an important part of Leadership, but that kind of input is only part of the executive decision making process.

So let the Leaders play their game. If you want to influence the big game's path, get yourself elected. If you just want to voice your opinion, just do so. It's a wide-open game, but only some are officially Leaders.

Sometimes I just like to *****.

 

[DaveShack]

Cyc, that wasn't the type of response I would have expected from you, but I like what I'm seeing. Just had to re-read it to make sure I was interpreting it right.

I think you already know that this thread is not about any perceived problems in Term 5 (at least not my perceptions of problems) but an open ended discussion on how it ought to be next game, however not sure if some others will pick up on the illustrations in your post and think this is about DG5T5.

Yes, I'm after a system where leaders are not just puppets controlled by continuous polling, but relatively independent people who bring forth an agenda and receive a mandate to push that agenda. There are several possible changes we could make, and it looks like several people are thinking about improvements to the game.

I tried to make one thing clear early on this game, I liked to see initiative by new people in coming up with new ways to present a choice between several competing plans. The doctrine concept was and is an excellent way to handle leadership in this environment -- the name "doctrine" still makes me shudder but that's a personal preference. There were some issues with the way certain ideas were presented, which got in the way of those ideas being accepted. This is an area we could improve by having experienced players volunteer their time to help newer players with style and presentation, so the substance of the idea is what gets voted on, and not the format it is presented in.

As commented by several people, we need to make it easy to participate without opening the save. This is especially important if we decide to take the big leap into Conquests, PTW, or a large mod like DYP to spice up the game. As you're aware, I'm trying to find an effective way to split strategic and tactical decision making, so we can poll the big decisions and let leaders do their stuff for the little decisions. The benefit is that given accurate information provided by others, you don't really need the game open to think about strategy, so we can use an expansion without shutting people out. My initial thought on that was to have totally separate strategic and tactical roles, with different people. If we keep enough people involved then that would work ok, otherwise we would need to define in the law what is strategy and what is tactics so we'd know what needs to be polled and what doesn't.

 

[Cyc]

Sorry, DS. Yes, that post was about DGs in the future tense mostly. The examples I used were just to give some personal reference to those reading my words. Most everyone has an opinion on those things.

My main point was about the way we expect our Leaders to do their job. I believe that is a prime issue for future Demogames. I didn't veer off into lesser issues (although at times just as important) because that can be done in other posts or other threads.

I also believe this should be the last Vanilla game. Go for C3C and it's features. I'm not sure what difficulty the levels are set at, but yoou definitely need something higher than Vanilla Monarch level. I was a major proponent for this game's level as I felt all the newer players should concentrate on the Demogame, not the Civ3 game. Guess I was wrong.

As far as helping the newer players with polls and what not, I believe I volunteered at least twice in the newbie thread to give guidance in a couple of areas. But then again, I've done that for 5 Demogames now.

 

[Black_Hole]

My Overview of DG5
Note: This is more on the constitutional side of things
Note2: If you like reading short non detailed stuff scroll down

1. Executive Branch: I think it was better this way(more departments) than last Dg
2. Legislative Branch: Unforunately in the consitution there is no clause giving the MIA authority over provinces that there is no governor for, there should be such a clause. Also the constitution mentions an advisory council, well no one ever posted a thread for that(well there was a discussion thread or 2, but no actual government type thread)
3. CC/JR proccess: I think it worked great! Much much much much better than last DG(just check out the last term judiciary thread in DG4 ) CC#1 was handled very efficently and took only a bit more than it should have(discussion thread was closed, requiring another to be opened) JRs are settled within 3 days.
But the problem was that the judicial procedure was never made into official law, I think the citizenry should have voted on it to make it official(kinda like a ruleset below the code of laws)
4. Election process: I greatly prefer the new system, as I dont like the mods running the election process(ideally the mods would only enforce forum rules, not run parts of the dg)
5. Ruleset as a whole: now even tho above my comments were all good, in whole the ruleset has too many holes, and can easily be interpereted differently by different people... thats a bad thing... The main problem was missing content, I can think of lots of stuff that should have been put in, most likely the abrupt start to the dg is to fault for that
6. Election in all reality:Even though the election process is good, like many other people I think the elections have turned into popularity contests. And as Cyc said we should elect leaders that are going to operate how we want. Now I hope SD3 doesnt mind, but i will use him as an example:
Now i personally dont mind lots of time between TCs, but I know lots of people do. However, when he was elected Ill bet he was elected for the fact he did good in domestic and was a rising star, not because of the time between TCs. It would almost be good if we had a set platform that we would request people post, it would be different for each office of course.

Now to sum everything up(for people that dont like long posts ):

1.Executive Branch: Good, with numerous offices
2. Legislative: Okay, Vacant provinces should be under MIA, along with sometype of council that should have been made
3. CC/JR Process: Great! CCs and JRs are done very efficently
4. Election process: New system is good
5. Ruleset as whole: Bad, too many holes that we dont put in because of common sense ideas
6. Election in reality: Bad, they are popularity contests.

 

[donsig]

No, I am not satisfied with the *democracy* aspect of the demogame.

I ended up voting in only one election since I got tired of looking for a real election. I guess it's fitting that the one vote I did cast was for Nobody.

I'd say unless you all are ready for some major changes to reinvigorate the demogame you might as well let it die out after this one's over.

 

[Black_Hole]

Oh and another thing. When we decide on the next ruleset, let's keep a time limit to it, like 1 month. None of this "Let's waste an entire season discussing how to post threads and polls!" stuff.

This just sparked something in my brain after reading it again, why do we make all next game decision in between games. If we wanted to have a short inbetween time and not to lose ppl in between why don't we start heavy discussion before the end of this dg? Now ppl will probably say not to because it takes away from the participation of this dg, but lets face it :what participation?

 

[Black_Hole]

No, I am not satisfied with the *democracy* aspect of the demogame.

I ended up voting in only one election since I got tired of looking for a real election. I guess it's fitting that the one vote I did cast was for Nobody.

I'd say unless you all are ready for some major changes to reinvigorate the demogame you might as well let it die out after this one's over.

ummm there was only one contested election

 

[ravensfire]

This just sparked something in my brain after reading it again, why do we make all next game decision in between games. If we wanted to have a short inbetween time and not to lose ppl in between why don't we start heavy discussion before the end of this dg? Now ppl will probably say not to because it takes away from the participation of this dg, but lets face it :what participation?

Well, that's essentially what this thread will do - start people thinking.

I know of at least two, fairly detailed proposals being worked on for DG VI.

And in most of the previous DG's, work HAS started on the ruleset before the previous game finishes.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Octavian X]

There's a good idea - why not start working out the kinks of how we want to run things in DGVI now? We could cut down on what I understand is an unbearable time between games (I kind of enjoy that inter-DG period, but that's just me, I guess. ) If we're lucky, those discussions could draw some more activity into the game as we approach victory.

 

[Black_Hole]

There's a good idea - why not start working out the kinks of how we want to run things in DGVI now? We could cut down on what I understand is an unbearable time between games (I kind of enjoy that inter-DG period, but that's just me, I guess. ) If we're lucky, those discussions could draw some more activity into the game as we approach victory.

actually I also somewhat enjoyed the inter game time....

 

[donsig]

Work on the DG ruleset started way back in DG1. (Term three if I'm not mistaken. ) It evolved fairly nicely until we hit a bump in DG3. (Term three IIRC. )

But honestly people, only ONE contested election? Bury it. Take a break for a few months. Try something new.

 

[Black_Hole]

Just wanted to know:
Is there anyone against having the next DG in conquests?

 

[zorven]

I suspect however that this time the cause is different. If some of the dearly departed are still lurking maybe they will grace us with some feedback. Also, there is a very simple and unavoidable reason for some people to leave, which is changing RL situations.

Ok, I'll chime in with why I am no longer active. I started a new job during DG4 and have since had alot less computer time. I wanted to stay active in the game, but I found that the game moves too fast for me to stay informed of the game situation based on what is posted in the forums. That is, I found that the Leaders did not post enough in-game information for me to be able to adequately understand what was happening.

Another thing that did not help my enthusiasm coming into DGV was this feeling that we need to reinvent the wheel each time we start a new game. By this I mean we have a constitutional convention to radically revamp the ruleset. I would rather see us carry the existing ruleset forward each game and work during the game to add and modify laws. I think what we have been doing leads to the legal battles we see at the beginning of each of the last few games.

In conclusion, I will probably not rejoin unless: the pace of the game slows down (fewer turn chats per week); or I find that the Leaders post adequate in-game data and narratives.

 

[Black_Hole]

Ok, I'll chime in with why I am no longer active. I started a new job during DG4 and have since had alot less computer time. I wanted to stay active in the game, but I found that the game moves too fast for me to stay informed of the game situation based on what is posted in the forums. That is, I found that the Leaders did not post enough in-game information for me to be able to adequately understand what was happening.

Another thing that did not help my enthusiasm coming into DGV was this feeling that we need to reinvent the wheel each time we start a new game. By this I mean we have a constitutional convention to radically revamp the ruleset. I would rather see us carry the existing ruleset forward each game and work during the game to add and modify laws. I think what we have been doing leads to the legal battles we see at the beginning of each of the last few games.

In conclusion, I will probably not rejoin unless: the pace of the game slows down (fewer turn chats per week); or I find that the Leaders post adequate in-game data and narratives.

unfortunately many people want a faster paced game, with sd3 as president play has slowed to an acceptable(for me) rate with a bout 1 tc a week and another 1-2 tcs at good intervals

 

[Cyc]

I have to agree with zorven, on both of his points. I don't mind a nice slow pace, especially in the begining of the game. History is made by leaps and bounds at the begining of the game. Personally, I can move through the begining of my games at a good pace, but I don't play like many of you (or visa versa). The slower pace allows for more discussion and a synergy of play styles. This makes for less disgruntled players.

I was actually going to suggest carrying over our current rule set and changing/adding what you all wanted done to it. We could also bring with it the Judicial log. That way the Judiciary wouldn't have to answer the same questions all the time. They could just refer to the JL. This would save us a lot of time and re-writing.

 

[GenMarshall]

I have to agree with zorven, on both of his points. I don't mind a nice slow pace, especially in the begining of the game. History is made by leaps and bounds at the begining of the game. Personally, I can move through the begining of my games at a good pace, but I don't play like many of you (or visa versa). The slower pace allows for more discussion and a synergy of play styles. This makes for less disgruntled players.

I was actually going to suggest carrying over our current rule set and changing/adding what you all wanted done to it. We could also bring with it the Judicial log. That way the Judiciary wouldn't have to answer the same questions all the time. They could just refer to the JL. This would save us a lot of time and re-writing.

With a busy college scedual, a relationship, and other RL issues. A slow paced game is more enjoyable and informative for me

 

[MOTH]

Just wanted to know:
Is there anyone against having the next DG in conquests?

I am against conquests. I would like to see it played using PTW. If we play in conquests I will not be able to hold any position as I will be unable to load a save.

Ok, I guess I could run Science or maybe domestic... Either way, it would vastly limit my participation.

 

[Rik Meleet]

MOTH: now there is a mistake in thinking. Instead of: "I see an obstacle; how can we bypass it" I read your reply as "I see an obstacle; so the plan is not good".

I've had the honour of skimming through one plan for a new DemoGame setup and that plan makes it possible to play, even without access to the saved game.

Provo: I don't find your writing style interesting. I usually stop reading a thread as soon as you've written a reply; they are way too long and way to boring and full of accusations. Please change that.

As many (should) have noticed my involvement has decreased largely over the last ouple of months. I'm not sure why, really. Many reasons I guess.

I've copied/pasted removed and added to Ravensfire's list of reasons.

• Same game as before
• No challenge to the game
• Too many polls, not enough discussion on vital issues
• Minimal, at best, summary information by leaders
• Horrible, horrible polling practices
• Turnchats at wrong times for European players

I think the main reason for me the game is loosing its juice is that I've seen it all and done it all. It was clear what would happen and that the game was won. I consider most after term 3 as "sitting it out".

I agree that Vanilla Civ3 shouldn't be the game where DemoGame 6 is based upon. Conquests is stable enough to be used as basis. We only need to find a good way to allow citizens without C3C to play. I think that it is very possible. And we need a higher game level. Monarch is just way too easy. Emperor or even DemiGod are the level we should be looking at. If it stays Monarchy we do need other ways to make it more challenging. My attempts to make DG5 more difficult were voted off. Too bad, but that's Democracy for you.

 

[classical_hero]

I think we need to vary the time that TC are taken. I know that It has been impossible for me to attend any TC because they are either too late or too early for me to attend. The most recent TC I attended was the one the Chieftess had at 5PM Perth Time. A variation in the TC Times might help bring life back to the game.

 

[donsig]

Ok, I'll chime in with why I am no longer active. I started a new job during DG4 and have since had alot less computer time. I wanted to stay active in the game, but I found that the game moves too fast for me to stay informed of the game situation based on what is posted in the forums. That is, I found that the Leaders did not post enough in-game information for me to be able to adequately understand what was happening.

Well, that hits the nail right on the head. Why isn't info posted in the forums? Because of the reliance on the chat. Rik Meleet also points out something we learned way back in DG1. We're a world-wide community who cannot all be online at the same time. Two very good reasons to get rid of the blasted chat.

Another thing that did not help my enthusiasm coming into DGV was this feeling that we need to reinvent the wheel each time we start a new game. By this I mean we have a constitutional convention to radically revamp the ruleset. I would rather see us carry the existing ruleset forward each game and work during the game to add and modify laws. I think what we have been doing leads to the legal battles we see at the beginning of each of the last few games.

In conclusion, I will probably not rejoin unless: the pace of the game slows down (fewer turn chats per week); or I find that the Leaders post adequate in-game data and narratives.

I agree with this in principle but since I don't know what is in the current ruleset I will not argue that we should carry this one forward. The best ruleset we had was the DG3 constitution. That document had evolved over the previous two demogames and was fine. Unfortunately it was not used as it was designed to be used. It needed an underlying code of laws which by now could have possibly evolved into something that could be carried over from game to game. BUT when it comes to laws it is feast or famine. Rather than trying to build our laws slowly, solidly and methodically as the need for them arise we've always taken the approach that we must hammer out a complete ruleset before we play. Our rulesets have never been successful. One reason we've not been able to work this out is the fact that we have moderators who are active in the DG which takes away from the democratic principle that we all have an equal voice. When moderatos step in and start tinkering with or over-riding our rules then we lose all incentive to work things out amongst ourselves democratically.

I'll lurk here and there but will continue my boycott of looking at the saves. So, unless game info is posted in the forums in a quickly accessable manner (a game play summary in one convenient thread along with other more specific governmental theads) I'll continue voting in polls without participating much in the discussions.

BTW, maybe we should change the focus of the duties of our elected officials. Rather than give them the power of posting game play instructions (which many wrongly construe as the power to make game play decisions) we should make it their duty to post relevant game info. For example, rather than have the Trade Minister tell us what trades we should make he (or she) should post a list of possible trades and let us decide what we want to do...