Constitution Discussion : STARTING FRESH

[Ginger_Ale]

Each term (1 month in length), nominations go up for the "DP Pool" (Designated Player = DP). Anybody can nominate themselves. When elections go up, anybody who gets 50% of the total votes for them (multiple people can be elected and always are) will be a DP for one turn play session (turnchat). Anybody can vote for anyone (multiple people) who they think will do a good job. It's a great way to get used to the way the game is played!

 

[ravensfire]

Err, posted in wrong thread!

nothing to see here, we are a hedge, please move along ...

-- Ravensfire

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I saw that ravensfire! Nothing about a training session of course...

 

[Alphawolf]

Sorry - should have added this to the last post - what is the DP Pool? I'm guessing that peoples votes get weighed by the number of posts they have to this forum.

I hope not as that would make some more equal than others.
-the Wolf

 

[RoboPig]

Three big problems with the rules committee aproach:

• There could be someone left out who would make trouble on the basis of not being included.
• It pretty much rules out the idea that newcomers could have much influence, given the predilection for popularity based voting.
• The committee's approach could end up being unpopular.

no after the commitee has a proposal ready we the citizens would vote on it. that way we have a popular constitution that has been put up by demogame veterans. in order to let newcomers have influence in the draft we could either
1. allow a newcomer into the commitee or
2. set up a thread for people to post ideas. that way the commitee could get an idea of what the newcomers want and could try to incorporate those ideas into the constitution

 

[I am the Future]

So has the idea of haveing a bill of rights been vetoed, and replaced with something more simple( IE 1 paragraph in constitution)?

 

[Strider]

So has the idea of haveing a bill of rights been vetoed, and replaced with something more simple( IE 1 paragraph in constitution)?

Not that I know of.

I'm not really opposed to a Bill of Rights, I just find it kind of useless. Like I said, we never had any problems with it in past Demogames as an Article inside of the Constitution. As I really don't see Civ IV effecting that element of game play, I see no real reason to change it.

Of course, I'm just one person. While I've held considerable power in the past, I can't 'veto' anything.

 

[Harrier]

Three big problems with the rules committee aproach:

(1) There could be someone left out who would make trouble on the basis of not being included.

But they can put themself forward to be elected. If they do not get voted in - that is Democracy.

Also the committee I proposed is only going to last for 3 months, while the draft is put together.

It means that somethink is being done - rather than having lots of different views discussed over a long period time.

Those not elected are still able to influence the committee by posting their views in the appropriate forum. We could open a thread just for that purpose and get a mod to lock it when the committee has finished it's work.

Remember it is there just to start the ball rolling - not control the game.

(2) It pretty much rules out the idea that newcomers could have much influence, given the predilection for popularity based voting.

We could stipulate that 1 or 2 of the 5 members be newcomers. Probably a good idea - as new blood means new ideas. If the newcomers drop out after a few weeks - elect another newcomer citizen to take their place.

You should know from the Civ3 democracy games whether citizens are new or not.

(3) The committee's approach could end up being unpopular.

Any approach we take could could end up being unpopular, or should I say will end up being unpopular, with some citizens.

Again the point of the committe is just to get things started.

There will be plenty of time afterwards for people to lobby to change the draft constitution once the game gets started.

That could actually be part of the draft - that every 3 or 6 months the constitution is discussed and amendments or additions are proposed.


Also we could adopt Striders proposal of having two committee's. That may alleviate the probable troublemakers you mentioned. If they did not make it onto the first committee - well they may be on the second.

First committee - top 4 votes. (plus highest voted newcomer).
Second committee - votes 5 - 8 (plus 2nd highest newcomer).

Of course, I am being politically incorrect here - in assuming newcomers will not get sufficient votes to be in the top 10.

 

[Strider]

.Also we could adopt Striders proposal of having two committee's. That may alleviate the probable troublemakers you mentioned. If they did not make it onto the first committee - well they may be on the second.

First committee - top 4 votes. (plus highest voted newcomer).
Second committee - votes 5 - 8 (plus 2nd highest newcomer).

Of course, I am being politically incorrect here - in assuming newcomers will not get sufficient votes to be in the top 10.

Well, I was thinking along the lines of running two differant elections, one for each committe (Basically, were hold nominations and elections for the first one.. and then were hold nominations and and elections again for the second).

Also, I belive there is really no need to specify seats for newer players. Part of the general idea is that most of the first committe will be mostly verterns. Just because the Vets are the only ones who truely have an idea about how to do things. No offense to the newer players, but do any of you really feel confident enough to take a management role in a crucial part of the game?

What I'm hoping, is that the through the first committee's discussions, more and more people will start to learn the mechanics of the game. As more and more of the newer players distinguish themselves in these discussions, it allows them the ability to be possible canidates for the second committee.

This should fit inline with (my plans anyway) perfectly. The first committee handles the basic framework of the constitution, as I said above.. this should be the committee made up of people who have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The second committee should be made up of alot more newer players, as they will handle the revisions of the constitution, this allows alot of the newer ideas to be implemented also.

Does this sound good, or am I just making no sense?

Edit: Just to clarify this, I am not trying to exclude anyone or any group of people. I'm trying to find an efficient, democratic, and organized way to handle the pre-game discussions/decisions.

 

[Noldodan]

That looks like it'll work, Strider. Set it up.

 

[Nobody]

Remeber there was civ2 demogames aswell. i am against this being a continaution of the civ3 demogame (which is dieing) and make it a totally new civ4 demogame

 

[RegentMan]

Agreed. If we want to be Persia, let us be Persia without bringing up the fact we were Persia in the past (this is Civ IV, not Civ III). New game, new demogame.

 

[Harrier]

Well, I was thinking along the lines of running two differant elections, one for each committe (Basically, were hold nominations and elections for the first one.. and then were hold nominations and and elections again for the second).

Would members of the first committee be barred from the second?

Also, I belive there is really no need to specify seats for newer players. Part of the general idea is that most of the first committe will be mostly verterns. Just because the Vets are the only ones who truely have an idea about how to do things. No offense to the newer players, but do any of you really feel confident enough to take a management role in a crucial part of the game?

I wasn't advocating that - just addressing DaveShacks concerns.
I agree that the experienced democracy players should start the ball rolling.

What I'm hoping, is that the through the first committee's discussions, more and more people will start to learn the mechanics of the game. As more and more of the newer players distinguish themselves in these discussions, it allows them the ability to be possible canidates for the second committee.

This should fit inline with (my plans anyway) perfectly. The first committee handles the basic framework of the constitution, as I said above.. this should be the committee made up of people who have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The second committee should be made up of alot more newer players, as they will handle the revisions of the constitution, this allows alot of the newer ideas to be implemented also.

Does this sound good, or am I just making no sense?

Edit: Just to clarify this, I am not trying to exclude anyone or any group of people. I'm trying to find an efficient, democratic, and organized way to handle the pre-game discussions/decisions.

Sounds good to me.

You probably need to draw up a list of required attributes of potential candidates. So people know what is expected of them.

 

[Strider]

Would members of the first committee be barred from the second?

I don't know, on one hand I want to say yes. It'll help my overall goal of trying to introduce people into the game. Then, on the other hand... if the majority of citizens still want that person, then why exclude one of our greatest thinkers at a possibly critical moment?

Were going to have to discuss this some more.

I wasn't advocating that - just addressing DaveShacks concerns. I agree that the experienced democracy players should start the ball rolling.

Agreed, we should give the first push, but then let everyone keep it rolling.

You probably need to draw up a list of required attributes of potential candidates. So people know what is expected of them.

I'll start working on it.

 

[Harrier]

I don't know, on one hand I want to say yes. It'll help my overall goal of trying to introduce people into the game. Then, on the other hand... if the majority of citizens still want that person, then why exclude one of our greatest thinkers at a possibly critical moment?

Were going to have to discuss this some more.

Personnally I think it would be a good Idea to have at least two people from the first committee on the second. As it will help keep the momentum going.

They would be able to explain quicker why certain decisions were made and help keep the overall focus of the group.

 

[uubry]

From Harrier

Personnally I think it would be a good Idea to have at least two people from the first committee on the second. As it will help keep the momentum going.

They would be able to explain quicker why certain decisions were made and help keep the overall focus of the group.

I second that.

 

[I am the Future]

Personnally I think it would be a good Idea to have at least two people from the first committee on the second. As it will help keep the momentum going.

They would be able to explain quicker why certain decisions were made and help keep the overall focus of the group.

what if we set it up with 2 month terms.
first we elect 2 people to draft the final version of the constitution. This is one month of their term. (Exe AA)
Then 2 more people are elected as the DPs, so for one month the 2 original people are DPs. (Exe BB AA)
the next month 2 new people are elected, replaceing the original 2 (Exe CC BB)
the process repeats so that it ends up being
MONTH 1- AA
MONTH 2- BB AA
MONTH 3- CC BB
MONTH 4- DD CC
MONTH 5- EE DD
CONTINUE AS NEEDED

any ideas?

 

[RoboPig]

Would members of the first committee be barred from the second?

Well we should have 1st commitee members be voted on to the 2nd commitee by at least 60% that way we have someone who the people trust as a great thinker and not have just two guys (or girls)from the 1st commitee

 

[Strider]

I posted a poll over the organization of the pre-game here