Civ4 - Game of Democracy - Announcement

[Stilgar08]

Well, I'm very disappointed about what I read here, but nevertheless there's no necessity to re-invent the wheel, I mean to go through the whole review and wiping out of errors again with the flex-government!

Regardless of the fact that the win of the tri-gov was illegal, I currently would vote for the tri again simply because I believe it is the better government!!!

But maybe we're comparing peaches and apples here...

I don't wanna delay anything anymore but OTOH wouldn't it be more fair to make a run-off poll between the tri and the flex after giving the flex-supporters time to review and work out the ruleset as thorough as it had been done for the tri-government... Maybe things will look different then. So my suggestion would be: Let the supporters of the flex (I'm not one of them) state how much time they would need to work the ruleset out and THEN let's compare and pick the better one!

For now the better one is still the tri-gov, IMHO...

 

[Sigma]

Allow me to provide an example which I think encompasses this situation pretty well...

Your favorite sandwich is a turkey sandwich, and you ask me to make you one. I decide to make you a ham sandwich instead, maybe because I think you'll like it more (the reason doesn't really matter). You take a bite and immediately realize it's not what you asked for. Yet you continue eating, and it grows on you, and by the time you're done it's your new favorite sandwich.

The moral of this story: if you had thrown it back after the first bite, you never would have grown to like it.

The difference with our situation is that we've already grown to like our sandwich, but now some people want to throw it back with only 2 bites left! We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate when we ratified it overwhelmingly, and even if it's not perfect, we can always amend it. Completely scrapping it and starting over will dishearten many players, many of whom have already been disheartened enough by the recent controversy. If the public does favor the flexible government, then we should at least keep the Triumvirate, and amend the parts of flexible that we like into it.

(Note: My philosophy class made me pretty good at coming up with examples. I'm prepared to defend it and explain better how this ties into the current situation if need be.)

 

[Black_Hole]

Allow me to provide an example which I think encompasses this situation pretty well...

Your favorite sandwich is a turkey sandwich, and you ask me to make you one. I decide to make you a ham sandwich instead, maybe because I think you'll like it more (the reason doesn't really matter). You take a bite and immediately realize it's not what you asked for. Yet you continue eating, and it grows on you, and by the time you're done it's your new favorite sandwich.

The moral of this story: if you had thrown it back after the first bite, you never would have grown to like it.

(Note: My philosophy class made me pretty good at coming up with examples. I'm prepared to defend it and explain better how this ties into the current situation if need be.)

Well, we really have yet to do more than elections, so I wouldn't say the Triumvirate "has grown on us"

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Yes, but Sigma, that doesn't guarantee we'll like the 'sandwich' or the choice we make. We could end up sticking with the Triumvirate and later decide we hated it and we would've been better off with the Flexible. The more that I think about it, we should choose a ruleset we think will work better and we will have more fun with - we shouldn't choose one just because of time constraints.

 

[Sigma]

Sorry, I edited this paragraph in and 2 people had already responded by the time it was done!

The difference with our situation is that we've already grown to like our sandwich, but now some people want to throw it back with only 2 bites left! We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate when we ratified it overwhelmingly, and even if it's not perfect, we can always amend it. Completely scrapping it and starting over will dishearten many players, many of whom have already been disheartened enough by the recent controversy. If the public does favor the flexible government, then we should at least keep the Triumvirate, and amend the parts of flexible that we like into it.

 

[ravensfire]

DZ - you're making a radically different assumption than I do, that the mods would dictate the final state of a flex ruleset on us. There's no indication of that given.

This is a liguistic trick, and I can't tell if you're doing it intentionally, but in any case I have to make it clear: Depending on if "based on fraud" is refering to "ratified" or "ruleset", your assertion can be true or false.

Who's arguing semantics, Blackbird?

You cannot argue that there was fraud in the poll to determine Flexible or Triumverate. With that fraud removed, the Flexible ruleset won the election. This is simple fact.

How, then, can you even disagree with the statement that we ratified a ruleset that is fraudulent?

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Is this "fruit" you speak of a legitimate legal concept, or has the Old Testament been ratified as law?

Yup. Basically, do not allow someone to benefit from an illegal act. In criminal, if either side acts illegally during the investigation/trial to determine information, that information is excluded. In civil, do not allow someone to profit from their act by requiring repayment plus the punishment

Perhaps we should require Flexible to receive 60% of the vote here before we allow it to be scrapped outside the realm of our current law.

Perhaps we should require the Triumverate to actually win a non-fraudulent election before we use it.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Ginger_Ale]

The difference with our situation is that we've already grown to like our sandwich, but now some people want to throw it back with only 2 bites left! We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate when we ratified it overwhelmingly, and even if it's not perfect, we can always amend it. Completely scrapping it and starting over will dishearten many players, many of whom have already been disheartened enough by the recent controversy. If the public does favor the flexible government, then we should at least keep the Triumvirate, and amend the parts of flexible that we like into it.

You feel we are WAY FATHER than we actually are.

Elections are simple - it doesn't matter if the ruleset is poorly written or not, all you have to do is put up a poll. So I wouldn't say we have '2 bites left'. We're more like only 1 bite in ... the ruleset hasn't even been tested yet.

"We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate". Odd. If you read the beginning of this thread, Rik Meleet posted this:

If we disregard the 10 votes of Double logins the outcome would have been:

Flexible - 19 votes
Traditional - 5 votes
Triumvirate - 10 votes
Abstain - 1 vote.

Hmm...it appears to me, that legally Flexible would've won the citizens' approval. Even in the second poll as a result of the DL-votes to tie the first one, Flexible would've won 16-12.

So obviously your statement is not right. "We" didn't all agree we liked it.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

"We all agreed that we liked the Triumvirate". Odd. If you read the beginning of this thread, Rik Meleet posted this:


Hmm...it appears to me, that legally Flexible would've won the citizens' approval. Even in the second poll as a result of the DL-votes to tie the first one, Flexible would've won 16-12.

So obviously your statement is not right. "We" didn't all agree we liked it.

Apparently, everyone liked it enough during the ratification process. People could have voted their conscience, but instead confirmed it as our rule of law, overwhelmingly, by a vote of 21-1.

 

[Sigma]

We could end up sticking with the Triumvirate and later decide we hated it and we would've been better off with the Flexible.

Isn't it possible to argue that we could end up going with the Flexible, later deciding we hated it and would've been better off with Triumvirate?

 

[DaveShack]

Still not committed to either side personally...

If we choose Flexible and throw out all the completed elections, who is hurt the most by doing that? The people who were elected, some of whom are first timers.

If we continue with Triumvirate, who is hurt the most? I can't answer that question. The Tri supporters are very open about the effect changing to flex would have on them. The Flex supporters seem to be relying on principles

For many DGs we have suffered from declining population. Some of the people who have left said it was because we're too confrontational on the whole. Others said they wanted to just get on with the game, and prolonged rules fights like this pushed them away.

We're bleeding as it is, can we afford to bleed some more? Will anyone make sacrifices to improve the health of the society which plays this game?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Apparently, everyone liked it enough during the ratification process. People could have voted their conscience, but instead confirmed it as our rule of law, overwhelmingly, by a vote of 21-1.

Can't there be multiple rulesets that people like? If we put up a ratification poll for both, who knows? Maybe both would be ratified well like the Triumvirate ratification, and that would be great - it would show the quality of them both. Saying the Triumvirate was ratified like that doesn't mean it's better than Flexible - you can't compare with that poll. It means the Triumvirate is good and will work according to the people. The same could be true for Flexible. The only poll we can compare with is where the whole point of the poll is Flexible vs. Triumvirate, not Triumvirate Yes vs. Triumvirate No. However, Flexible won that poll..

Isn't it possible to argue that we could end up going with the Flexible, later deciding we hated it and would've been better off with Triumvirate?

Of course it is, it's not CoL-specific. I was just saying that where we are now is not very far into a DG.

 

[Blkbird]

With that fraud removed, the Flexible ruleset won the election. This is simple fact.

Fact is, that "election" has no constitutional significance. It only has a significance as a Right of Custome, which is not all that strong.

As I've noted before, talking "what if" in politics is useless, as history cannot be reversed - and should not be reversed in our case even if we could, because we do want to simulate the flows of history here, that's the whole point of the game.

How, then, can you even disagree with the statement that we ratified a ruleset that is fraudulent?

Because the ruleset simply is not fraudulent, it's the process through which it came into effect. And even the process is not fraudulent to a degree that it violates the constitution.

 

[Blkbird]

Yup. Basically, do not allow someone to benefit from an illegal act. In criminal, if either side acts illegally during the investigation/trial to determine information, that information is excluded. In civil, do not allow someone to profit from their act by requiring repayment plus the punishment

First, the fraud didn't occur during an investigatoin or trial, and second, there is no person profiting from his fraudulent act here (except maybe Alphawolf, but his "profitting" has been ended already). So what you've stated is all irrelevant.

A person committing fraud is a bad person and has to be punished. An idea which is the "fruit" of a fraud can still be a great idea.

 

[Blkbird]

The Tri supporters are very open about the effect changing to flex would have on them. The Flex supporters seem to be relying on principles

I strongly disagree. My support for the Tri is primarily based on the constitutionality (in my opinion, that is) of the current CoL, I cannot be relying on principles more.

As I've said before, Tri is ahead in this comparision both in the principle and the practical front.

 

[Blkbird]

Saying the Triumvirate was ratified like that doesn't mean it's better than Flexible - you can't compare with that poll. It means the Triumvirate is good and will work according to the people.

It's great you agree to that, because some people seem to have a different opinion regarding it.

 

[DaveShack]

I strongly disagree. My support for the Tri is primarily based on the constitutionality (in my opinion, that is) of the current CoL, I cannot be relying on principles more.

As I've said before, Tri is ahead in this comparision both in the principle and the practical front.

I misspoke, sorry.

The Tri supporters also base their support on the principle that the ratification was the only binding vote in that string of votes, and on it being a good ruleset.

What I was trying to say is that the Flex supporters have not identify anything they would "lose" by allowing Tri to continue, other than the principle.

 

[donsig]

Can't there be multiple rulesets that people like? If we put up a ratification poll for both, who knows? Maybe both would be ratified well like the Triumvirate ratification, and that would be great - it would show the quality of them both. Saying the Triumvirate was ratified like that doesn't mean it's better than Flexible - you can't compare with that poll. It means the Triumvirate is good and will work according to the people. The same could be true for Flexible. The only poll we can compare with is where the whole point of the poll is Flexible vs. Triumvirate, not Triumvirate Yes vs. Triumvirate No. However, Flexible won that poll..


Of course it is, it's not CoL-specific. I was just saying that where we are now is not very far into a DG.

Ginger_Ale we cannot have two sets of rules operating at the same time. It is difficult enough as it is to try to decide what is allowed and what isn't under one set of rules! The kind of poll you're suggesting would only be a beauty or popularity contest. It could not be a way of deciding what rules we're going to use to play a game.

DaveShack has brought up a great point and I'd like to reinforce it. I'm a firm believer that haggling over the rules is an inherent part of any democratic system. It is a part I enjoy and that's why I ran for a judicial spot. Not all people feel the same as I do. Some want to play and not be bothered by demogame rules. That's fine. We need a demogame where those of us who want to put time and energy into a good demogame ruleset can do so while those who want to play or engage in roleplaying can do so at the same time. One of these aspects of the game should not bring the others to a grinding halt for that will surely reduce the fun for part of our players and they will leave to do something else.

Rik Meleet had good intentions in posting this poll but he asked the wrong question. We should not be debating Flexible versus Triumvirate here. That debate was made long ago. It was polled, Triumvirate won and the people moved on to formalize that system. Now that this has been done we find that the original poll was fraudulent and therefore misleading. But we cannot simply go back to that poll and accept it's modified results and go from there. It is a matter of timing.

If the fraud had been detected early on then we could have made the switch and put our efforts into refining Flexible for ratification. That opportunity was missed. Flexible and Triumvirate are no longer equal entitites as one is a diamond in the rough while the other has been cut, polished and set. We have to look at things as they are now, not what they were at the time the fraudulent poll ended or even at what could have been.

Compare the fraudulent poll to the fraud uncovered in the recent elections. The fraud in the elections was found in time to install the actual choice of our citizens into office. If the fraud had been uncovered after the term ended this could not have been done. The fraud would then (unfortunately) have been a fait accompli.

All that aside, as a veteran of many demogames I think it is about time we come to realize that we do not need a complete set of rules in place before we start playing and we certainly do not need to stick with one set of rules through out the whole game. Just as there are different stages in a Civ game (openings, midgames and endgames) so there should be different stages to our rules. Our form of government can change over time. There is nothing wrong with that and making such changes should not bring the game to a halt.

The question we should be asking ourselves is not whether we want a Flexible or Triumvirate system. The question we should be asking ourselves is do we want to move ahead and play using the decisions already made (irregardless of what they were based on) or do we want to, in light of recent revelations, stop and go back to a certain point and start over?

In other words do we want to play or do we want to figure out how we're going to play?

 

[Blkbird]

A good summary, donsig.

 

[Rik Meleet]

1 vote taken away from Triumvirate. 1 vote added to Flexible.
Ginger_Ale has changed his mind.