Citizen Pulse : Are you satisfied with the democracy?

[Strider]

Okay, as I'm getting kind of tired of everyone saying what we need to do, and still doing nothing, so I'll start it off with my ideas for Poll and Instruction standards:

1. Polling Standards
a. All polls shall be presented with the base choices, an other option, and an abstain option.
b. All poll choices must be defined clearly as to what there effects will be, excluding other and abstain options.
c. All information needed to make an informed decision must be presented inside of the thread, including links to the discussion thread, and any other related threads (including it's respective ministry thread). If there is any core information missing from the thread, then there is a 24 hour time limit to supply the information, or the poll becomes void.

This is the basics for the polling standards that I will present to you. However, we have the option to toy with many other ideas for the polling standards. Do we want to create to differant types of polls? Offical and Unoffical, with official polls being the ones that follow all of the constitutional guidelines, and unofficials ones being polls to quickly determine the will of the citizenry. Of course, if we do decide to do this, it would only make sense that only Official polls are counted. There is also several other things that we should toy with.

A. Turnchat Instruction Standards
1. All instructions must be posted inside of proper thread, by either the minister or deputy of a recognized department.
2. Instructions will appear in varying formats depending on the department.
a. The Domestic departments orders will appear first with Queues for cities without a province then with slider orders (appearing in a turn order format) shortly followed by a list of agreed budget changes.
b. The Foreign Affairs department orders will appear first with treaties followed by espionage missions.
c. The Ministry of Defense will post orders first with military goals (IE: take ?? city) followed by unit orders.
d. The Ministry of Trade will post trades in a turn-order format
e. The Ministry of Science will post there instructions first with a 20 turn tech queue, followed by a list of technologies that should be acquired VIA trade if possible.
f. The Ministry of Culture will post it's instructions first with agreed wonders builds (in city XXX), followed by a list of cultural dangers that should be watched.
g. Govonors shall post there instructions with each cities queue (must be 20 turns or more), followed by a list of wanted worker actions.

This is kind of titled, but I'm sure it'll straighten out before the game starts.

 

[Provolution]

We should also restrict the number of polls per term, to 2 polls per office week for key strategic decisions, leaving micro-management to the ministers.

 

[Black_Hole]

ummmm the polling standards are okay, but the TC ones arent...

they are telling the exact order things need to be in, and how to do it....
I can see someone getting CCed for putting instruction info in the wrong order...
also those standards are forcing the leader to be a certain style....

also restricting polls.... that is a bad idea provo
now some leaders might want to make more decisions, but others might want to poll more things, we cant say only 2 polls a week, what happens if something comes up? well then that minister(even if he/shee dont want it) are in total charge, there goes the democracy...

 

[Octavian X]

Personally speaking, I hate polls. I hate them with a great passion. My thought is that this whole game could run a lot more smoothly and clearly if all decisions were made on concensus in regular forum discussion. Polls encourage, at least in my opinion, a lazy citizenry that expects all of it's choices to be narrowed down to two or three straightforward choices, rather than perhaps another that could have been arrived at through discussion. We then get into polling standards, and...

But that's my ideal world where everything works properly and everybody listens to me. Clearly, something that won't happen.

Polling standards, and body to judge polls to ensure that they live up such standards, is a good idea. Such standards, in my opinion, should be broad, no-nonsense ones that are very easy to follow - nothing overly complex.

 

[donsig]

If the same legal masterminds and minister critics delivered a tenth of their energy into proactively driving the game in place of mocking, minimizing and distancing themselves to what has been done, this could conceivably go much better.

As a self professed Legal Mastermind and Minister Critic I'd like to point out that I put quite alot of energy into shaping the demogame ruleset back in DG1, DG2 and DG3. We had a beautiful and workable constitution in DG3 which got trashed after term three of DG3. I have argued ever since DG3 ended that we should continue to adopt the DG3 constitution. What can be more proactive than that? What can be easier than using a constitution that is already written?

Frankly, I'm tired of explaining why the DG3 constitution is good. I'm tired of explaining the concept of having two or three levels of laws. Every demogame it's the same legal debates over and over again now. Our laws evolved in demogames one, two and three. Since then we've only been reinventing the wheel. Combine that with the fact that we're still playing vanilla Civ and it's the same old same old. Add this to the on going problems caused by the chat and leaders who think they can ignore the citizens. So far I see no reason to devote any energy to DG6.

But the strong presence in this debate, the lack of interest in government offices and lack of participation in other debates, proves that the game has lost most interest. In fact, the biggest challenge for the next ruleset is to make government positions interesting and respected enough in order to keep minimal game population and participation. I think it is high time to upgrade all citizens to responsible congressmen and senators, with a different political dynamic placing responsibility and authority all over.

Sounds like you want all Chiefs and no Indians. All citizens are supposed to be legislators. That's why polls are so important to the demogame. Polls are the mechanism through which us responsible congressmen and senators cast our votes on the important issues confronting our nation. As legislators we cannot all be experts on every aspect of the running of our nation. We each concentrate on areas of specific interest yet we should vote on all important issues. We should look upon our Ministers as something like committee chairmen in the US House or Senate. They should be experts in their area and should do some filtering of issues to get the important ones before the people. Our leaders should be putting important questions before us in such a way that we can decide the course we want to take.

Unfortunately, many citizens - especially some leaders themselves - look upon their office in a different way. They see their election as permission for them to not only decide what the important issues are but to decide the course as well! No ruleset is going to change that thinking.

Right now, we got a bunch of disgruntled veteran players throwing tomatoes on performers on the stage as soon as they pop up, and automatically shift to legal ruleset fantasies when there is no one to bother.

Excuse me Provo, but those are rotten tomatoes we're throwing. Perhaps if you weren't *performing* (and expecting applause) we wouldn't be throwing decaying vegatables your way.

I think we should all bear in mind that different people want different things out of the demogame and we each have varying levels of time we can devote to the DG. We would have a much richer demogame if we tried to accomodate those who can't look at the save and / or who cannot attend the chats and /or who do not have hours each day to search through the forums looking for answers to simple questions. I've proposed two methods of getting us to the point where we are forced to present easily accessable and well organized game information in the forums. How can I be more proactive than that?

Those two methods are:

1) Get rid of the chat

2) Play two turns every day no matter what

The second seems the best since it allows chats to continue (heck, there would be one every day!) It would also allow us to have multiple DPs which in and of itself would keep more people interested in the demogame.

I think it's time to decide if either of these methods is acceptable in principle. If they are then we can explore the ideas further and refine them. If not we can confine our discussions to other directions.

 

[Chieftess]

If we have a 'turnchat' everyday, we may need a new subforum for that. Reason? That forum alone will get atleast 270 threads (540 if we went every turn) if we used our current method. Think about election time. Every day, the election and nomination threads will drop down one because of all the turnchat threads. Would advisors be required to post instructions every single day? The only advisor I can see really benefiting from this is Trade, as they could check every 2 turns.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

No, Chieftess, the advisors would post instructions for a longer period of time (sort of like what we do now); at least, that's how I understand it. I don't get where we would post these instructions now...

Why do we want to switch from the current way we play the game now, as long as we change the ruleset? The only change I would willingly accept would be making it more forum-based, with the DP keeping a log of their actions when they play turns offline.

Also, this 2 turns per day method would incur a lot of micromanaging, would it not, since we go very slow?

 

[Provolution]

I actually support the 2 turns per day mode as long as we can have binding instructions for a week.

 

[blackheart]

We should also restrict the number of polls per term, to 2 polls per office week for key strategic decisions, leaving micro-management to the ministers.

Are you kidding me? If I was still a minister I wouldn't want my hands tied by some silly/crappy law that only limits to me 2 polls a week. Polling ammount and content depends on each minister's style and preference and should be left out of the rulebooks (unless it conflict with something like the abstain option, etc.)

Originally Posted by Provolution
If the same legal masterminds and minister critics delivered a tenth of their energy into proactively driving the game in place of mocking, minimizing and distancing themselves to what has been done, this could conceivably go much better.

That's what government is about. We are, in fact, emulating real life 100% government. Enjoy.

 

[Provolution]

Remember, we got some criticism for polling congestion, and I think some would like to micromanage the game more than others. I think too many polls kills good strategic discussions. If we limited the amount of polls, in particular on micromanagement, that would enable players not looking at the save to follow the main strategy of the game.
If we are to emulate real life government, the ministers should have much more power, and this is where the problem is the biggest. Some players think that ministers should have some powers, some not. Again, we should rather look into the election process, where each candidate must carve out a platform for each term.

I still stand by the statement that some are more interested in sabotaging for others rather than driving the game, and some of it has to do with forum rules and how these
are handled.

 

[Black_Hole]

Remember, we got some criticism for polling congestion, and I think some would like to micromanage the game more than others. I think too many polls kills good strategic discussions. If we limited the amount of polls, in particular on micromanagement, that would enable players not looking at the save to follow the main strategy of the game.
If we are to emulate real life government, the ministers should have much more power, and this is where the problem is the biggest. Some players think that ministers should have some powers, some not. Again, we should rather look into the election process, where each candidate must carve out a platform for each term.

I still stand by the statement that some are more interested in sabotaging for others rather than driving the game, and some of it has to do with forum rules and how these
are handled.

what happens if the military minister already used his or her 2 polls early on sunday one week, and then on wednesday TC some civ out of the blue declares war. Well we have a few options:
1. Wait another 5 days before we start a poll
2. Just let the minister decide
3. Post a poll for the better of the DG and get CCed

 

[Provolution]

I think good polling standards would reduce the number of polls, but a limit has to be there to enforce it, this would also make the ministers put more energy into each poll. I think the legal department sometimes go to far in regulating the game, but the problem is not necessarily on the ministers or the citizens side, but in the ruleset. I will certainly have nothing to do with in game laws in general throughout the game, as such processes may be heavily politicized and questionable.

About some civ out of the blue declaring a war is another matter, each military candidate should present their military doctrine for all possible wars in the election as their main platform, so we could handle surprising attacks.
We must change elections from popularity contests to political choices.

 

[Black_Hole]

heres a general constitution discussion asking if we want to use a new rulset or an existing one

 

[Sir Donald III]

As for Future Demogames, I say we have a group of people collect "similar laws" for each section between the 5 Demogames, for comparission and Polling.

For example, the Judicial Code of DG5 would be listed with the similar laws/codes from DG1, DG2, DG3, and DG4. We then examine these, and poll between these as to which one we would tentaively accept for DG6.

Options for each major point would be:
DG1
DG2
DG3
DG4
DG5
None of the Above.
Abstain.

While this would likely result in a hodgepodge, it would at least be good enough for a Draft, which we can improve upon.


As for this 1-3 truns per day option, and the dissolution/neutering of the President... Hm...

Certain offices, i.e. Science and Governors, could have Standing Orders that would go on until a significant event happens. These could keep up with a Turn a Day.

Culture... has no power.

Domestic... could work with 1 a day. Rushes need to be polled so that takes 2 days, with an extra day for Determination. But that still works OK. Upgrades, well... not so well.

Trade is too dynamic for a turn a Day. It needs 1 day for Trade determiantion, 1 day for other input, and 2 days for polling trades.

Foreign is Spying and Peace Treaties... 3 Day Work

And Military... well...

So the balance is more in line with the present system, except that things can change too dramatically.

Hm...

 

[Provolution]

I agree with SD3 here, the proposal by Donisg does not take measure for long term plans, which should come out of the elections.

 

[blackheart]

I think good polling standards would reduce the number of polls, but a limit has to be there to enforce it, this would also make the ministers put more energy into each poll. I think the legal department sometimes go to far in regulating the game, but the problem is not necessarily on the ministers or the citizens side, but in the ruleset. I will certainly have nothing to do with in game laws in general throughout the game, as such processes may be heavily politicized and questionable.

About some civ out of the blue declaring a war is another matter, each military candidate should present their military doctrine for all possible wars in the election as their main platform, so we could handle surprising attacks.
We must change elections from popularity contests to political choices.

Where's the flexibility? Just because a plan was laid out at the beginning of the term doesn't mean it'll be viable mid or end term. I think slapping cuffs on the hands of ministers isn't a good way to increase happiness. Are we really all that incompetent that we can't run our own polls?

 

[Provolution]

It is a question of making the elections count for something. Right now they are flamefeasts and popularity contests. People who gives a damn about long term strategy at least for a term would fall short.

 

[Strider]

The elections will always be popularity contests, there is nothing we can do about it short of getting rid of them.

We need to find a way to use these "popularity contests" to make the game more interesting, instead of complaining and coming up with hopeless ways to try and prevent it.

 

[Provolution]

This means, we must put in platforms in those elections than is sort of committing. I think the doctrine system or alternative long term system worked. This creates a long term strategy for the entire age/term, the problem is that the election rules do not set election platforms in as a standard, heck, people could even answer a multiple choice poll
on what their platform is. Of course, it would always be a "popularity contest", but removing the flaming and threadjacking to some extent would benefit the game. Except for some trolls of course.

 

[Strider]

This means, we must put in platforms in those elections than is sort of committing. I think the doctrine system or alternative long term system worked. This creates a long term strategy for the entire age/term, the problem is that the election rules do not set election platforms in as a standard, heck, people could even answer a multiple choice poll
on what their platform is. Of course, it would always be a "popularity contest", but removing the flaming and threadjacking to some extent would benefit the game. Except for some trolls of course.

This could be easily merged with the debates, and I don't think it will be overly hard for the election office to come up with a standard 3 questions that they can ask every candidate (one of which will include "What is your platform?").

However, I believe the reason we are having problems finding people to fill the leadership poistions, is because throughout the game we've taken away there value. Now the leadership poistions are even worst than being an average citizen, you have no new power to influence anything, and you get to waste an extra hour or two of your time. We need to give our leaders more power, we need to give people a reason to want to be one, not make people feel like it's a neccisity to keep the game going.