Citizens Group: Tradationalists

[Strider]

Added the "Amending the Constitution" part, which has been under work for acouple days now.

 

[MSTK]

Can I join this?

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

OK. how do i join?!?

 

[Dominik]

OK. how do i join?!?

You just did.

 

[Strider]

OK. how do i join?!?

Yup, you just did. Be free to comment on any of my proposals, and if you see anything I'm missing from the constitutional proposals, by all means point it out to me.

 

[MSTK]

I just have to say that as a long-time surfer of the internet I have witnessed a lot of changed over the many years that I have gone sifted through the world wide web. Sometimes when I wallow in my nostalgic grief I sometimes wish that for just a day I could return to the olden days where things were still green. Change is inevitable, and never could a forum or community survive long without it without a close-knit community. It is that community which I cherish as the greatest thing outside of the real world. I have a life outside of computers, but to have a community online where everybody knows each other and all were held in equal esteem is something that should never be lost. And yet in many places I helped achieved that symbolic perfection within communities, unified by the love of a video game, a movie, books, image editing, and many others.

But then, things change.

It is a very disturbing feeling, the world changing around you and yourself stuck where you are, unable to adjust, convincing the world vainly to stay the way it is. Things are fine as they were! Yet a new community moves in and overshadows the old. Bonds break apart and things just start over again. And in that moment I realize that everything I had worked for and everything that the community had worked for had been in vain, and that nothing last forever. All things must fade.

End rant.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

sounds pretty sweet to me. By the way i think that citizens should have more say. I think that "main" positions should be elected then "secondary" positions should be appointed by either the officers or by people.

Just my opinoin, besides im new to demogame so if that sounds silly whatever...

 

[Strider]

sounds pretty sweet to me. By the way i think that citizens should have more say. I think that "main" positions should be elected then "secondary" positions should be appointed by either the officers or by people.

Just my opinoin, besides im new to demogame so if that sounds silly whatever...

If I'm thinking correctly, this is what my orginal intent was. Nothing has been done to change this either. It's still up there, somewhere.

 

[Strider]

I just have to say that as a long-time surfer of the internet I have witnessed a lot of changed over the many years that I have gone sifted through the world wide web. Sometimes when I wallow in my nostalgic grief I sometimes wish that for just a day I could return to the olden days where things were still green. Change is inevitable, and never could a forum or community survive long without it without a close-knit community. It is that community which I cherish as the greatest thing outside of the real world. I have a life outside of computers, but to have a community online where everybody knows each other and all were held in equal esteem is something that should never be lost. And yet in many places I helped achieved that symbolic perfection within communities, unified by the love of a video game, a movie, books, image editing, and many others.

But then, things change.

It is a very disturbing feeling, the world changing around you and yourself stuck where you are, unable to adjust, convincing the world vainly to stay the way it is. Things are fine as they were! Yet a new community moves in and overshadows the old. Bonds break apart and things just start over again. And in that moment I realize that everything I had worked for and everything that the community had worked for had been in vain, and that nothing last forever. All things must fade.

End rant.

This about the Thursday turnchat session?

 

[MSTK]

This about the Thursday turnchat session?

No, it's not. Its about the world in general...

 

[mad-bax]

I was initially put off by the name of the thread and so I have put off reading it for now.

I am interested in developing the constitution and the Code of Laws to a state the is both workable and promotes "joined up" thinking for the game as a whole.

I think independently of course, and so my views may not be the same as the rest of the group, and I have not had the time to write my own version of the constitution, and probably never will.

I would like to join the group if that's OK so that I can try to influence the ammendments that are proposed. If I consider the finished product a significant improvement over what we currently have then I will vote for it.

 

[Strider]

I was initially put off by the name of the thread and so I have put off reading it for now.

I am interested in developing the constitution and the Code of Laws to a state the is both workable and promotes "joined up" thinking for the game as a whole.

I think independently of course, and so my views may not be the same as the rest of the group, and I have not had the time to write my own version of the constitution, and probably never will.

I would like to join the group if that's OK so that I can try to influence the ammendments that are proposed. If I consider the finished product a significant improvement over what we currently have then I will vote for it.

I would suggest reading the thread fully. Also, the more discussion the better, so welcome to the group .

If you have anything to say, or to propose please do so. Also, if I do post an arguement, don't get scared away. Arguement helps to mold our and shape everything, so I tend to do it often.

 

[mad-bax]

Here are a few things that I would like considered. It's late now and so I won't be able to form a proper argument at this time, but I will later.

1. I don't like the vice-president being in the CoC. It is an appointed position. The only time the VP should have power is when the president is absent, in which case the VP is in effect the President.

2. I don't like the linear, top down approach of the CoC. The president should have a team (lets call it a cabinet for now), and the output from that team should be used to direct the actions of the provinces. In this way we can have a joined up strategy for the game, rather than a miriad of separate discussions about tactics that are not necessarily joined up or considering the big picture.

3. I would like to see a Treasury. This would be a department. The responsibilities of this department would be to allocate funds to the various other departments, to calculate gdp and predict future gdp, and to set targets for Shield, food and Gross income for the next turnset. The treasury would also be responsible for the "reserve" which would be used at the presidents discretion to pay demands, make rushes etc. The Treasury would report to the President.

4. The cabinet would consist of a Department for Defence, A department for trade and industry, a department for culture and so on, pretty much as you have it now. Each department would submit their plans for the next turnset and apply for a budget. The treasury will then compare each departments proposed spending against the strategic objective and allocate the budgets accordingly. The departments would then amend plans to ensure they stay within their budget.

5. The cabinet will then allocate budgets to each governor along with the modified plan. The Governors job will be to deliver the plan within budget.

Obviously some departments will not interact much with the governors. The Science minister for instance. So he would be responsible for setting the tech progression and the rate of tech progression. To do this he would have to calculate the number of beakers required to get each tech in the specified number of turns. If the treasury won't give him enough money, then he would have to amend the plan and/or direct the governors to increase beaker production. So he might ask province 1 to bring beaker output from 132/turn to 194/turn. The governor would then build improvements and hire specialists to deliver this plan.

I won't write more, since long diatribes are boring and turn people off. But there is more, and as I said I will expand on it more later.

None of the above is intended to reduce the rights of the citizen in voting etc. BTW. It might sound like I want a transfer of power to the top of the government, but that's not true. I just want (for the moment) a short CoC through elected offices only, and a fiscal policy that will focus people. Some of the calculation might appear difficult, but there are tools now which mean that it's trivial, and the calcs don't have to be perfect anyway. That would be part of the fun.

Edit: Strider - you won't scare me away. If you can pull my arguments apart then I would applaud it. Democracy is about putting your case as best you can and trying to sway people to your way of thinking. It's a really difficult thing to do. Most people will not change their mind whatever information you put in front of them. I will.

 

[Strider]

1. I don't like the vice-president being in the CoC. It is an appointed position. The only time the VP should have power is when the president is absent, in which case the VP is in effect the President.

Good point, but the orginal intent of the VP was to be the back-up DP. Of course, I'd prefer just letting the President chose the DP for each game session, wether it's himself or another citizen.

2. I don't like the linear, top down approach of the CoC. The president should have a team (lets call it a cabinet for now), and the output from that team should be used to direct the actions of the provinces. In this way we can have a joined up strategy for the game, rather than a miriad of separate discussions about tactics that are not necessarily joined up or considering the big picture.

It's part of the Presidents job to coordinate efforts between leaders. It is much easier and more efficient to place a leader of each "section" of the game. That way we don't have leaders filibusting decisions, and we can keep the game moving forward.

3. I would like to see a Treasury. This would be a department. The responsibilities of this department would be to allocate funds to the various other departments, to calculate gdp and predict future gdp, and to set targets for Shield, food and Gross income for the next turnset. The treasury would also be responsible for the "reserve" which would be used at the presidents discretion to pay demands, make rushes etc. The Treasury would report to the President.

There's not really much point in this, the Domestic Minister can handle all allocation of funds. Also, inside of the past Demogames the treasury has always been greatly abused (only trade actively ever uses it), so I doubt there will be any need.

4. The cabinet would consist of a Department for Defence, A department for trade and industry, a department for culture and so on, pretty much as you have it now. Each department would submit their plans for the next turnset and apply for a budget. The treasury will then compare each departments proposed spending against the strategic objective and allocate the budgets accordingly. The departments would then amend plans to ensure they stay within their budget.

This is basicly what Domestic already does, they can grant leaders the use of a certain amount of gold for a turnchat etc. Basicly all gold/trasury/national income falls under the domain of the Domestic, and is one of there main duties. In my above proposal (the modified tradational one), I took away Domestics power over settlers and the formation of provinces. So now the Domestic Department is charged, with mainly just slider and gold allocation.

5. The cabinet will then allocate budgets to each governor along with the modified plan. The Governors job will be to deliver the plan within budget.

It might work better off, to allow the Governors to request funds, when needed, and then let the cabinet accept or decline this task. Governors really only need gold to rush improvements/units, and I doubt they are going to be doing this often.

Obviously some departments will not interact much with the governors. The Science minister for instance. So he would be responsible for setting the tech progression and the rate of tech progression. To do this he would have to calculate the number of beakers required to get each tech in the specified number of turns. If the treasury won't give him enough money, then he would have to amend the plan and/or direct the governors to increase beaker production. So he might ask province 1 to bring beaker output from 132/turn to 194/turn. The governor would then build improvements and hire specialists to deliver this plan.

Science will need to interact with governors to push for Libraries, Universities, etc. Not much they can do other than that, the governors need to keep there cities happy and productive, and shouldn't have to worry to much with science. Afterall, inorder to effect science research much, you will need to coordinate large scale efforts, the easiest way of doing this is just to move the slider up. [/QUOTE]

 

[MSTK]

Hold on -- remember that the Designated Player has no real power.

 

[mad-bax]

Thanks for the detailed response. I should really have held off posting until I had developed a proper argument.

I don't want to get hung up on the names of departments or even the detail of what each job is. What I really want is a form of government that has a structure that allows good gameplay. One of my concerns is that the game seems to have no overall strategy and no discussion of it. So to re-phrase what I said earlier...

A. There should be an overall strategy for the game. It should take into account the will of the people and it should be accessible in a thread.

For Example.

Objective: Win by 130K victory condition in fewest possible number of turns.

Method: Expand peacefully through the landgrab phase. Expand militarily to the domination limit thereafter. Maximise the advantages of our civilization traits.

Milestones.
i) 15 Cities by turn 80
ii) Change of government to Republic - turn 100
iii) Complete control of starting landmass - turn 150
.
.
.
xx) Cultural victory turn 340


B. The tier of government below this will then decide upon the tactics required to achieve it. They will have to work together for this and so should be at the same level. So then each department would follow a plan.

For example

{office in charge of expansion}

Settle at a density of 13 tiles per city inland, and 8 tiles per city on the coast. Please see dotmap attached.

At domination limit increase density in provinces A, f, h and g to 6 tiles per city.

Disband cities to allow for new resources or strategic positions to be taken without breaking the domination limit.

Once the domination limit is reached maintain a national border covering tiles required to stay less than 10 tiles from domination limit.

So then we have a tactical plan for each department.

The Governors will then manage their provinces to deliver the tactical plans.

Everyone needs to know what they are expected to deliver, and with what resources. In other words they need a target and a budget.

This type of set up would promote better game play IMHO, would be more challenging for officials and end up being more fun.

As regards the CoC: If the CoC is only the order in which the DP is decided then I couldn't care less. But if it is a reporting line then I have big problems. The CoC hould be hierarchical if this is the case.

 

[Strider]

Thanks for the detailed response. I should really have held off posting until I had developed a proper argument.

I don't want to get hung up on the names of departments or even the detail of what each job is. What I really want is a form of government that has a structure that allows good gameplay. One of my concerns is that the game seems to have no overall strategy and no discussion of it. So to re-phrase what I said earlier...

A. There should be an overall strategy for the game. It should take into account the will of the people and it should be accessible in a thread.

For Example.

Objective: Win by 130K victory condition in fewest possible number of turns.

Method: Expand peacefully through the landgrab phase. Expand militarily to the domination limit thereafter. Maximise the advantages of our civilization traits.

Milestones.
i) 15 Cities by turn 80
ii) Change of government to Republic - turn 100
iii) Complete control of starting landmass - turn 150
.
.
.
xx) Cultural victory turn 340


B. The tier of government below this will then decide upon the tactics required to achieve it. They will have to work together for this and so should be at the same level. So then each department would follow a plan.

For example

{office in charge of expansion}

Settle at a density of 13 tiles per city inland, and 8 tiles per city on the coast. Please see dotmap attached.

At domination limit increase density in provinces A, f, h and g to 6 tiles per city.

Disband cities to allow for new resources or strategic positions to be taken without breaking the domination limit.

Once the domination limit is reached maintain a national border covering tiles required to stay less than 10 tiles from domination limit.

So then we have a tactical plan for each department.

The Governors will then manage their provinces to deliver the tactical plans.

Everyone needs to know what they are expected to deliver, and with what resources. In other words they need a target and a budget.

This type of set up would promote better game play IMHO, would be more challenging for officials and end up being more fun.

As regards the CoC: If the CoC is only the order in which the DP is decided then I couldn't care less. But if it is a reporting line then I have big problems. The CoC hould be hierarchical if this is the case.

This is currently the system in place, which has so far completely failed. It has not promoted better gameplay, as the leaders just do they jobs anyway with no interaction. It's lacking solid supporting laws, because we wasted 2 months building something new, which presents a huge constitutional crisis. Add in the introduction of hundreds of flaws, gambits, and problems in the system itself, and the idea you presented above has completely and utterly failed.

By placing two differant leaders in control of the same aspect of the game, you do nothing but allow them to fight amongst themselves. You don't promote gameplay, you take it away. Not only that, but inorder to create a tatical and strategic cabinet, you would need to double the amount of leaders. This makes the elections boring, and also greatly increases the amount of leaders that are appointed.

You also have a problem with changing citizen moods and changing game events. Why create all of these plans, when one event inside of the game will destroy them all? Another civilization declaring war can change everything inside of the game, and there is no possible way to predict when or if it will happen. You could prepare for it, but that will waste our time and reduce our leaders efficiency, so wasting time on something that may not ever happen is pointless. Now take the above and throw in the will of the people changing, it happens often, one week we'd decide on one thing, the next we decide on the complete opposite. Does it make sense to create strategic plans in an environment such as this?

Now, I agree that long term planning is needed is some circumstances. Examples of this being Wonder building, most of science, and sometimes trade. However, other than the things that have to have sometype of long-term planning, what is the point? To do what? Waste our time on creating plans that will never come to pass? Divert attention from more important aspects of the game?

 

[Strider]

Okay, everyone, I in less than a week I'm going to make an attempt to push for the constitutional proposal (the Modified Tradational one) to be passed and take the place of the current one.

This will likely take place after I make some more modifications/fixes in the system. If any of you guys have any suggested changes or concerns throw them at me now.

Also, I'm going to ask for all of your support in this endeavor.

 

[Provolution]

I wonder what happened to the compromise, or would you run with the traditional 6 minister set up ? I think reshuffling the cabinet positions to be more balanced, and making
Directors balanced as well would make sense. Long term planning fails due to the lack of integrated functionality of offices and more detailed task descriptions.

 

[DaveShack]

By placing two differant leaders in control of the same aspect of the game, you do nothing but allow them to fight amongst themselves. You don't promote gameplay, you take it away. Not only that, but inorder to create a tatical and strategic cabinet, you would need to double the amount of leaders. This makes the elections boring, and also greatly increases the amount of leaders that are appointed.

I'd be interested in any documented instances of friction between leaders in this term. So far I've noticed quite a lot of cooperation. Sure, some things have needed to be prompted, but that is expected when we're trying something new.

Also the only appointed positions we have currently are the ones which are designed to be appointed. We even have several elected and appointed leaders who don't have Conquests, which is only possible because the nature of the offices was designed in part specifically to allow non Conquests owners to hold them.

Even the number of JRs is well below what would be expected at the current maturity level of the ruleset. This indicates to me that the vast majority of the people want to just play the game.

Nevertheless, if the number of people who want to make a change exceeds the requirements for an amendment (as shown by a vote), then I'll be happy to perform my duties in whatever government style the people choose.