CIV4 MTDG , 3 Teams + some AI civs (not Civ3)

[Provolution]

Well, Falcon 03. I think we can do without a "judicial system" in the civ4 game, but you are free to have it in your civ3 demogame. One of the reasons I am not going for the civ3 demogame, is the knowledge that it will be a big judicial system in that game.

If people disagree, all we need is a simple arbitration mechanism, this will also be a different game with 3 teams, so the challenges are different for this kind of game.

 

[DaveShack]

Proceeding beyond the instructions is the most common intentional in-game offense.

Even if we don't have a judiciary, we will have several sheriffs.

 

[Provolution]

Sheriffs are fine, at least its clear and honest. What we do not want, is the cumbersome US Civics 101 Court System we saw in those demogames with Chief Justice, Defense Attorney and Prosecutor and all that blurry legalese most players found more confusing than helpful. As long as the game is moderated and people react to obvious trespasses, we will be fine. Arbitration will be handled by one of the leaders as well, but without the huge apparatus and massive drama.

 

[thecommonnate]

The Judiciary has had a somewhat shaky past...

I feel something needs to be there to make sure the rules are followed properly to maintain order, and this is the role the Judiciary is intended to fill.

The issue in the past (as I've seen it) is that it's been used against people who make honest mistakes.

ie. a new comer who opens up a save and plays ahead without realizing that it's not allowed. The new comer is likely to apologize for their error when they realize it's not permitted... however a investigation and sentencing still proceeds despite the fact it was a minor error and the person is apologetic.



Another issue is different interpretations of the law. The Judiciary is intended to help resolve these differences in interpretation. But again it is often taken too far.

Two people read the constitution and come away from it with two different views of what it means because it's hard to address every way someone might interpret a clause. Somebody, with a full knowledge of the constitution may honestly feels an article allows them to do something, when someone else may feel that action is forbidden by the constitution. The result of which should simply analyzing the law and determining what the proper interpretation should be as a group (ie. Public Poll) and clarifying the wording, and continue on with the game. Instead, it gets turned into an investigation into the individual and sentencing process to determine what "punishment" if any should be given to the "accused."



95% of all issues brought before the Judiciary should not result in any finger pointing or discussion of possible punishment. But I saw it happen far too often when I was playing.


The remaining 5% is for when someone knowingly breaks the law for one reason or another... intentionally ignoring valid instructions, intentionally ignoring the will of the people to make sure the game goes the way they want it to regardless of what the citizens want. This is what the "investigations" and "punishments" are intended for... but there's still a problem.... How do you judge "intent" of someone who you never see or hear? How do you "prove" it's an honest mistake when all you can offer is your word? The problem is you can't.

The Judiciary is intended to try to prevent the demogame from delving into chaos, by ensuring that everyone knows the rules. For that reason it can't simply be ignored otherwise chaos may arise if an issue arises.

Also, to be clear I'm not saying the Judiciary needs to be structured like it has been traditionally (to me a "simple arbitration mechanism" is just another type of Judiciary), in fact I think there's definitely room for improvement given the amount of finger pointing in the past and the length of investigations that can clog down the demogame. However, whatever mechanism is used to resolve such issues of rule breaches and interpretations it needs to be in place beforehand to ensure the process of deciding how to resolve those issues does not in of itself bog down progress.


Edit: I think this quote is appropriate for the Judiciary discussion...
“It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.” - Voltaire

If interpretation will play a large role in any DG, and made exclusively in the Judiciary, please, point me to the nearest Court and I'll work my way to the top. Problem is, I don't think there is much in the actual DG that needs interpretation, based on the little decisions we have. Constitutions for a DG will most definitely consist of behavioral guidelines and gameplay courses; not much, except possibly broad gameplay guidelines, would require an entire establishment to interpret. Although I do love the idea.

 

[Falcon02]

If interpretation will play a large role in any DG, and made exclusively in the Judiciary, please, point me to the nearest Court and I'll work my way to the top. Problem is, I don't think there is much in the actual DG that needs interpretation, based on the little decisions we have. Constitutions for a DG will most definitely consist of behavioral guidelines and gameplay courses; not much, except possibly broad gameplay guidelines, would require an entire establishment to interpret. Although I do love the idea.

No decisions on interpretation should not be made exclusively in the Judiciary, it should really go to public poll, particularly if it's a major issue. The real idea is to make some sort of established mechanism to deal with any potential interpretation issues or rule violation issues. Now Provolution has stated he wants a simple arbitration method, but how exactly he proposes that to be structured differently has yet to be defined (maybe he elaborated it in a previous thread before I started browsing the DG forums again?). So long as it addresses resolving such issues, it should be fine.

Differences in interpretation can easily happen, and are almost guaranteed. One person reads one section to imply the Military Leader has the ability to do something, and another person feels another section implies that ability resides exclusively with another official or the citizens.

 

[Provolution]

falcon02

I thank you for your input, and I assume its well meant. However, as you are not intending to play the civ4 demogame, why have you started to post more here, than in the civ3 thread? I am certain we will figure something out in the civ4 demogame, for handling various decision flows, arbitration, rules and so on. But I, and many with me, do not want this game to necessarily echo some of the stuff you are likely to work with in the civ3 demogame, simply because that game is more of a retro-game, and this new game may be more experimental, utilizing the richness of possibilities in the civ4 bts franchise, options not found within the civ3 framework.

If you intend to play the civ4 demogame, I would be more than happy, but I must admit it seems a bit odd that you are very engaged in our rule debate, if you have no intention to play here.

 

[DaveShack]

However, as you are not intending to play the civ4 demogame, why have you started to post more here, than in the civ3 thread?

This is sounding a little too much like "don't post in this thread." Intent to play the game is not a valid criteria to filter who should post and who shouldn't. Strider suggested having a judiciary, and the discussion turned in that direction. If someone has historical information or advice to add, they are free to speak their mind.

This attitude ("non-citizens shouldn't post") is exactly the thing I've been saying is against forum rules and will not be allowed.

 

[Provolution]

Very well, I got the hint. We should let the civ3 demogame do their discussions first, so there is no conflict of interest, here on the Civ4 BTS area, and when they are done, we may start a discussion on the civ4 demogame. Now I prefer the MTDG you already mentioned, where only team members committed to the team and the game can post, with no distractions.

 

[Falcon02]

In an attempt to minimize the distraction caused by having to justify why I've posted in a thread intended to discuss Civ IV Demogame planning, I have put my direct response in spoiler tags.

Spoiler :

I honestly didn't think I needed to justify why I would post in the Civ IV DG thread...

The ideas laid out for the new Civ IV Demogame has perked my interest a bit (otherwise I wouldn't even be bothering posting here at all). And I will probobly end up participating (though probobly only as a regular citizen and not in an official position). I can't say I definitely will yet since as discussion is in the early phases about the only thing defined is "3 Teams." And I'm not sure even that is set in stone yet...

Now, I still intend to participate in the Civ III Demogame, and that's the one I am more likely to seek an official position in. But that doesn't prevent me from taking an interest and potentially participating in the Civ IV Demogame. I would like to see BOTH Demogames succeed.

Another thing is... believe it or not from a Civ III Demogame perspective I am also curious about what the solutions you guys propose, because we might want to incorporate some of those ideas into the Civ III Demogame. I recognize the fact that other people may have good ideas and may have thought of something that I overlooked. Yes, the Civ III Demogame plans to base the government structure on a Traditional system, but that does not mean that we wish to simply copy and paste an old Constitution without trying to find ways to improve upon it.

I have focused on the topic at hand, how best handle the role of the traditional Judiciary. I have mentioned issues I've seen in the past system that I feel will need to be resolved in any replacement, and mentioned the functions that I feel that system needs to be able to perform. I have also tried to get some clarification of proposed ideas from some posters. I don't see how that can be considered a "Distraction."

Hopefully this is where the distracting "New Civ III DG" vs. "New Civ IV DG" argument will end, so we can get back to the discussion of how best to structure the Civ IV DG.

One thing you should realize, part of what I've been saying is that that the Traditional Judiciary has flaws. I just would like a better explain what exactly it is that's been proposed as an alternative("Simple Arbitration Method", "Sheriffs"). I guess part of the problem is my use of the term "Judiciary." To you guys "Judiciary" means Chief Justice, Prosecutor, Public Defender. To me "Judiciary" is just generically any method for resolving conflicts involving game rules. So in the future I'll try to avoid using "Judiciary" unless referring to the Traditional system.

Right now to me "Simple Arbitration Method" and "Sheriffs" are vague terms to me... I have a pretty good understanding what they mean in the real world, but in the context of the demogame I'm not sure how they fit in.

What defines the two systems? Are the "Sheriffs" intended to be an elected official who pushes his/her interpretation of the law? Or are they intended to be a person to organize polls resolve every minor conflict in interpretation?

Does the "Simple Arbitration Method" simply involve the two sides (or individuals) with some sort of Arbitrator acting as a mediator? How does the Arbitrator get assigned? Is he/she an elected individual in office for a term, or decided upon only when an issue arises? How do you guarantee the Arbitrator is neutral?

As far as I know my impression of a "Simple Arbitration Method" and "Sheriffs" may be incorrect. Maybe you don't actually intend there be an actual "Arbitrator" position and meant something completely different. Do these either of these systems attempt to address both violations of the rules and disagreements in interpretations of the law? It's fine if you don't have the details worked out just yet (I wouldn't expect you to), but I'm still unclear on the basic framework envisioned when applying the systems to the demogame.

 

[Provolution]

ok Falcon03, good you are genuinely interested in the Civ4 BTS demogame, that is all I wanted to hear.

For the judiciary, yes, many of us had it with the traditional judiciary, for several reasons beyond the obvious ones. A simple arbitration mecnanism is by giving a player the power to choose on behalf of the team, or help reach consensus, whenever there is a tie, an unclear instruction and so on. Elections are the way to penalize bad team members, and moderators is the way to handle the forum rules. The area between elections and forum rules should be as small as possible, whereas the legalists, I know, loves to make that the main game. This is maybe why we see more former court members in the civ3 demogame, and less so here. The traditional court system is the biggest scam with the demogame in my opinion, and I hope that the group that likes that way to play, keep it to their civ3 demogame, not promoting it all over.

 

[DaveShack]

The "Sheriffs" are the ones with the badges, hired by the owner (for $0) to enforce order.

Don't slap me around for raising that possibility -- I'm hardly the first one.

I interpreted "simple arbitration" to be a single arbitrator position who would rule one way or the other on any dispute, quickly and fairly. No drawn out court proceedings where 3 justices hear arguments and then post rulings, and certainly no system of trial, jury vote, and "punishment" vote. Maybe the two parties of a dispute would need to agree on an arbitrator selected for that specific dispute.

 

[Provolution]

I think that is what we mean with the simple arbitration, to have an arbitrator leader in the government. There should also be a vote of confidence if that leader is unfair too, which can be held every week.

 

[Falcon02]

Okay that explains things a little better, thank you.

I think requiring a weekly vote of confidence would be a bit cluttering, especially when the hope is not to have to have to use the Arbitrator. But, of course want one ready in case of a dispute.

Just giving the citizens the ability to call vote of confidence if they feel the Arbitrator might be unfair might be sufficient.

 

[Provolution]

Okay that explains things a little better, thank you.

I think requiring a weekly vote of confidence would be a bit cluttering, especially when the hope is not to have to have to use the Arbitrator. But, of course want one ready in case of a dispute.

Just giving the citizens the ability to call vote of confidence if they feel the Arbitrator might be unfair might be sufficient.

Yes, not underestimate me. That weekly vote was an option, not a norm.

 

[civplayah]

Is this dead already? Maybe we should start on the ruleset? I agree with Provo's post concerning inter-team positions. If everyone else agrees, let's start a sign up thread.

 

[DaveShack]

If the teams are to be separate and membership for life like a competitive MP game, then we have one of those going already.

I suggest we return to discussion of the ideas in post 14.

 

[civplayah]

I skimmed through it, it sounds good. But that "third one" was the faction system, right?

 

[civplayah]

Can we have a forum opened, or is this just dead?