So, Ravensfire, so you are saying we should allow the DP that level of flexiblity within the game? The DP could easily decide to disband acouple of cities, because he didn't like the way they were located, sense there is no instructions telling him he can not do that, and no law stating wether he can or can't, there is nothing we can do about it. You guys are saying that you won't allow other citizens to have effect over the game in progress, because you believe our leaders should slave themselves away for abunch of people who's just going to complain and be ungrateful anyway?
Also, you expecting almost perfection from them. You can not rely on anybody to think of every little situatution that might come up within a T/C. The AI is almost un-predictable, of course there is many people who have gotten pretty close at predicting the AI, but I believe that none of those people play within this game, and some of the actions of the AI still confuse's them.
We can not expect our leaders to put that much fore-thought into a GAME. They've got lives of there own, and this is suppose to be for fun, I'm sure that very few people would call it "fun" if we play 1-2 turns a day, because some small problem pops up.
No, the only reason you guys want to do this is because you want as much power as you can get. That might not be your immediant thought or plan, but nonetheless it still drives you, wether you know it or not. You don't want your fellow citizens, no matter how trustworthy they may be, to have more power than you, so you give it to the one person within the game who will always have more power than anyone else, the president.
If that is not the case, why else would you rather have one person make all the choice's rather then a group of citizens? That is far from democracy. If anything we should have several people who represent the citizens and make the choice's the president currently makes. I do not feel comfortable with one person controlling almost all aspects of the game that the flexiblity allows him.
We give to tight instructions and we have to stop the T/C to come up with a new decision almost every 2 turns, open a thread where everyone complains about it for 4 days, then repeat it over again.
In the very first demogame there was an elected poistion called Council Member at Large. This persons job was to find the will of the citizenry and make sure it is implemented within the turnchat. I'd atleast feel alot more comfortable if we make this old office active again. I see no reason to bring back council spot votes, those were in my idea a stupid idea, but I see no reason why citizen spot votes should not be allowed. I see you guys coming up with a thousand ways to try to dis-prove why we support them, so then tell me, why do you support not having them?
The only reason I have seen to the above question is that it gives to much power to the citizens who can make it to the turnchat. So, we fix that problem by demanding more detailed and flexible (doesn't make any sense to me) instructions from our leaders, and then give the DP all the power he can implement from the lack of fully detailed instructions, which may I point out, there will never be a fully-detailed instruction that points out every aspect that we have to worry about, and how the DP should act if the said action actually happens. You are asking our leaders to devote there life to this game, no, your are demanding that our leaders devote there life to the game. You can not expect them to do that, most of our leaders have children, wives, work, school, homework, chores, and other dutied and/or responsibilities that comes far before this game. What you are asking for our leaders to do could take hours, you want them to type up detailed and/or flexible instructions for play within the game? 30-45 minutes for a good, reasonable instruction. You want our leaders to post discussions, polls, and show the information that concerns the subjects that needs to be discussed (const. articles, maps, etc.)? Another 30-45 minutes. (both of these can be handled within the 4 day period, which, IMHO is not all that unreasonable, but it gets better)
You want our leaders to implement the will of the citizenry for play in the game? Sure, he posts the discussion, lets everyone plan the oppositions assination, see what has a majority support, and put it in the instruction, if it's to close to call, they post a poll. Easy right? No, Alot of the discussions become 40 post threads that include so much discussion and idea's that it would give anyone a headache trying to sort it all out, then they have to clearly state those instructions in the rightful thread, then specifically list what should be done if something goes wrong. No, it's not all that easy.
Were asking our leaders to spend so much time on something that can be as simple as turning on your computer, sure it takes alittle bit of time, depending on the machine, but it is over all rather easy to complete, and the time tends to go by fast and smoothly (and prolly won't give you a headache either). I would have alot more to say in this matter (and more clearly define it), but I'm being stressed for time, and I must hurry up and get to my other points.
You guys say that a small group of citizens should not be allowed to make all of the decisions? They were NEVER making all of the decisions, a point you guys seem to fail to notice, from either lack of caring, or the lack of finding a defensive arguement against it, I haven't figured out which one (tough choice nonetheless
). The citizens inside of the turnchat were NEVER allowed to make all of the decisions. When we get where we have 4-6 govonors, managing 10 cities each, you aren't going to see detailed instructions on everything. Sure, the govonor can say "If any cities enter civil disorder, be free to place entertainers to stop it," but what if the entertainer cause's starvation in the city, or what if the city is builing an important wonder project, and it knocks down the time to completion by by 2 turns making it completed in 18 turns, when we have found by investigating a city that the babs will complete it in 17 turns? The chat shouldn't be stopped IMHO, just for that. We should be allowed to decide wether to place an entertainer in the city, or override (or veto) that small order and raise the lux slider up one, and it should not be the DP alone who makes that decision.
Moving onward, sure, we all would like for the DP to ask the advice of the citizens in the chat, but it is not required, and he can do anything he wants to, wether the citizens like or not, and this IMHO should not be allowed. If the only balance we have created against the DP abusing this power is the leaders posting impossibly detailed instructions, then this system is a failure.
You guys are so scared at the thought of this happening that you don't even realize that you replaced something that was democratic, effective, and economical (time saving) with something that is unfair/undemocratic, effective, and extremely non-economical. Yes, I will admit that the system is effective, and it so far, as gotten the intended purpose completed, but at what cost?
This system, to put it clearly, screws the demogame and all of it's traditions. This game was made for fun, not for the citizens to demand that the leaders post un-realistic instructions. I don't think anyone is having fun, at all in this game, espicially not the leaders. It has turned into where everyone is worried that something may go against there constituation, even if it was the right move. What happened to the fun in the game? It left with most of it's founders, only to be replaced with blood bubbling debates. I can see already from your actions and response's here that this game has be changed from what it use to be. Instead of even offering any type of compromise, and even considering a compromise, you immediantly come up with "I hate this because" or "I can't stand this," with is a selfish act by itself. What about the people like CT and I who can't stay the way it is right now? Just screw us, or what if we get enough support to get a draft up, post a poll, and implement spot votes once again, then what happens to you guys? No, you won't stand for this only because you helped to create it, you don't want someone else pointing out the flaws in your work, and can't stand for someone else to do so.
Instead of going over the same crap over and over again, lets atleast try to make a compromise. Let's bring back the past, the working together, the time when two people didn't become mortal enemies just because they had differant idea's over one subject.
This issue will be brought up again, wether you guys like it or not. The current system will never work, and it will have to be fixed sooner or later. I don't know about all of you, but I'd prefer sooner than later.
Let's remember the past, learn from our mistakes, and work together to make it work.
What I can't understand is why no one is taking responsibility for the build queues of our last two cities. I have never seen two cities go unattended like this before. These cities are in the first Province and should be taken care of by the Governor. But if political games are what we're playing here, or if the Governor is just too unsure of the rules to act accordingly, the AI Minister should step in and do it. This leaving everything undone for someone else to do because no one has the huevos to make a decision is unworthy of Fanatican Government. I demand we get this situation taken care of. 
