DG2 - Build as You Go Rules

[donsig]

I changed my legal position only after the majority opinion changed.

Just when did the majority opinion change? We never had a poll so did you count posts? Or do you have some sort of crystal ball I don't know about? (If you do was it manufactured by WotP, Inc.?)

If the majority is to rule then we need clear, fair and objective ways of determining just what the majority opinion is. Did the method you used to determine the majority opinion (either at the time of my private poll or later when you changed your legal position) live up to these three criteria?

 

[DaveShack]

Slight correction -- to be accurate the change in public opinion IMO was via a strong plurality (not majority) in this poll.

 

[donsig]

Perfect poll for our discussion DaveShack.

Under the system and constitution I'm proposing that poll would not have been an opinion poll but an initiative. In my system all polls are initiatves. I really hate so called opinion polls because they cloud the process of determining what the majority actually wants. If we stay focused on clearly defined, objective and fair criteria for forum polls then we will all be able to agree on what the majority wants. And if we elevate forum polls to a sort of sacred status by insisting that all completed forum polls (subject to whatever limitations are agreed upon via completed forum polls) that will help us all to produce better polls.

Now we do not have to poll everything nor do we have to give up trying to find out opinions. I suggest we conduct opinion surveys via a discussion thread rather than a poll. If we want the people's opinion on war with the Mongols we can open a discussion thread with a poll like question (Should we go to war with the Mongols? y/n/a) and ask people to post their answers as well as their thoughts on the subject. We can then keep a running count posted in the thread's first post. I think this would also generate discussion on that particular topic. Sure, people could go back and edit their opinions but we should understand that opinions are fluid anyway. The discussion is to be used to make a future decision, it is not a decision in and of itself. Also, for those who like public polls this method of gathering opinions is very public.

That poll is also a good example to look at for the majority / plurality question. If we continue to look at that poll as an initiative then what is the status of the majority decision? We have something objective - a poll result. Without going into whether or not the poll was fair (another of my three criteria) we could still argue over what the majority decision was. Allowing private polls got the most votes but did not get a strict majority. Without a previous determination of what constitutes a majority decision we leave the door open for arguments.

My suggestion is that we have to have a standard majority (more than half of those voting in the poll) for any option to be considered a majority decision. In the poll DaveShack brought to our attention there would be no decision from that poll and the status of private polls would remain as it was before the poll (whatever that was).

 

[DaveShack]

That's easy to say when "no decision" is equivalent to your preferred outcome. I guess it's critical to phrase the question carefully.

Any time there are more than two options, a plurality is possible. This is technically true of any vote with an abstain option, unless we discard the abstains. What about a result of:?
Yes - 9 (45&#37
No - 1 (5%)
Abstain - 10 (50%)

If we restrict binding polls to those with a true majority counting abstain, an official could implement the "no" option with impunity, even though 9 times as many people want the "yes" option. This is not a likely poll result, nor is it likely an official would do that, but what should we do if it does happen? Some decisions make or break the entire game.

On a side note, in RL the "abstain" option is the same as not voting, when the votes are counted. In a 5 member commission, if the vote is 2-1 with 2 abstains it is counted as a majority and the motion carries. In an election, 50% or more of the registered voters might refrain from voting on a ballot issue, but the issue is decided on the votes which are cast.

Politicians use abstain to get it on record they were present for the vote, because if they don't then their opponent for the next term will use their absences as a campaign issue.

 

[ice2k4]

Maybe you guys dont realize, but this is what turned a lot of people off from the demogame. The last bunch of posts have been you two wrangling over what seems like technicalities (not saying thats pointless though.)

 

[DaveShack]

Maybe you guys dont realize, but this is what turned a lot of people off from the demogame. The last bunch of posts have been you two wrangling over what seems like technicalities (not saying thats pointless though.)

That's why we're getting it out of our system now, before everyone shows up.

 

[DaveShack]

OK, time to bump this since nobody else has yet.

The proposal in this thread is to start with very few rules, and build as we go. A minimum game might start with a President and a Judiciary.

Not very democratic, you ask? Well, really it could be quite democratic. Depends on what the citizens do. In the draft constitution, the highest form of decision making is the citizen-initiated poll. Don't like what the officials are doing? Use a poll to change it! Wanna add a new office like Domestic Advisor? A poll can do that too.

We got to the point that we can't continue planning the game without your input, so what say you citizens?

 

[Cyc]

I say let donsig post his mock polls here so we can discuss any changes that may be needed. Mock polls will be required for any Amendments to this Constitutional process, no?

EDIT: Or maybe it should go in the Proposed Constitution for DG2 thread instead?

 

[Furius]

Someone, I think it was donsig, posted this link to a proposal by black_hole, on the first page: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4860035&postcount=13

I must say it stands as an incredibly good idea in my opinion because:
1. I am not in favour of having a sole office to decide everything, even to start with...
2. I am not, either, in favour of spending ages defining a multitude of offices down to the level of 'High Admiral,' 'Minister of Transportation'....
3. But, for all anyone knows, such offices may eventually become neccessary , and so this proposal created a middle road


Hope I'm not too late posting here?

 

[ordinaryguy]

I suggest we start with the bare minimum positions

1. President (overall head)
2. Domestic Official (to handle the positioning of capital)
3. Military Official (to take of the troops)

IMO, the other positions can be established as the game proceeds. For example, when an opponent is met, elections can be held for a Foreign Official.

Btw, is it official or something else?

Edit: Do we call the person official or what?

 

[dutchfire]

I suggest we start with the bare minimum positions

1. President (overall head)
2. Domestic Official (to handle the positioning of capital)
3. Military Official (to take of the troops)

IMO, the other positions can be established as the game proceeds. For example, when an opponent is met, elections can be held for a Foreign Official.

Btw, is it official or something else?

Edit: Do we call the person official or what?

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

 

[DaveShack]

Do we call the person official or what?

We've had:
XXX Advisor
XXX Leader
XXX Consul (or Consul of XXX)
Secretary of XXX
Minister of XXX

I'd say just pick a title structure, doesn't much matter as long as it's consistent.

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

Exactly the point, thanks for stating it so well.

 

[LordOgre]

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

I totally agree with dutchfire on that!

Although what ordinaryguy said isn't stupid either:

when an opponent is met, elections can be held for a Foreign Official.


Also, i guess our government should reflect our civics... If we are in a police state, (if the citizen votes for it), then the military advisor/minister/consul/offical should be the one leading our country...no?


Anyway, I gotta say you guys know your thing!

And i know this does not need to be talk about for the time being but, will we have a religious consul or something like that?

 

[Falcon02]

My reservations about "Build as you go" especially with "No Leaders" to start out with, except maybe a President is that in my experiance, getting serious discussion on major government/law changes can be hard. Once the game's started most people just want to play, not rewrite laws.

Thus lack of participation means nothing get's done. This seems to have occur last DG with the unrest over the voter fraud for the approval of it's government system, however despite the unrest it was never changed.

One reason I'm in favor of at least having the "Big Three" (Pres, Military, Domestic) is these offices are important, and I fear if we don't start with 'em we may never get 'em.

Also, at what point do we add military? 2 military units? first foreign contact? 3 military units?

What about domestic? 2 cities? 3 cities?

I know the idea is to get the opinion of people as things goes and when the public feels it's right that's when we add 'em, but messing with government structure, particularly midterm can be very distracting from the main game... or the main game can get very distracting from the important business of creating and defining this new office. What happens when we can't decide midterm exactly what we want the new office to do? The game must go on, but we go on without the benefits of a more organized Government structure.

Also, the Military Leader/Advisor in particular has more reponsibility in the early turns then (oh let's move this warrior around). They work out (with domestic and governors) military production to ensure we don't find ourselves short on military units, while at the same time making sure they don't demand too much so that our economy can also grow.

Simularly with Domestic.

Granted there's less to do at the start of the game then later, but there is more of a job there then it feels like some people are giving it credit for. Could the President/DP solo this part (with citizen input of course)? Probobly, but early on is when such planning is most important.

Also another thing... how are Leaders/advisors going to feel when you start giving responcibilities they once had to other people?


As I have said before, I'm not saying it won't work, and it is an interesting idea... but I have some major reservations.

 

[Electryon]

Hi all,

First time posting in this forum, but i'm very inerested in participating in the DemoGame. I'm generally planning on participating as a citizen...and since several post have asked for citizen input I thought I'd give my 2 cents.

I'd like to see the game get started with a minimum number of officials, as others have proposed, so that the game can, in fact, get started. If we try to define every role down to dog catcher before starting, the discussions could become so prolonged that it could turn some people off from participating. Of course if we dont have some structure, I think the whole thing will quickly turn into chaos.

I think we should have to start:
President
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of War
Secretary of State
Suprime Court (could be a single Chief Justice, or a fixed number of Justices)

(BTW I'm not necessarily endorsing these traditional U.S. titles. I think everyone probably understands what the roles are implied by these titles).

The SecState won't be very busy in the early game, but we'll need someone to fill this role sooner or later, why not just start with it? Who knows when we'll encounter other civs, and who wants to stop everything and have an election then?

Which leads to my next point: we don't have to wait for a crisis to to start defining other offices. We can work on those as the game goes on, even if they're never needed. For example, we might define the responsibilities of a Secretary of Religon/High Priest, but only fill the office if some condition is triggered (choosing a state religon, enacting Theocracy civic, etc.) Same for Secretary of Culture, Secretary of the Treasury, Govenors, Mayors, Sub-military leaders, whatever.

Anyways, just what I was thinking

 

[ordinaryguy]

In the beginning, what do we need the military official for if his only task is to move around one warrior? Only when the President/People feel that the president has too much power, a new official could be created to take care of the military part of his job.

ok i see your point I wasn't specific enough then.........

Maybe we could appoint a Military Ministry when we met another civ or encounter barbs. That's when we need to consider our defences especially if there are raging barbs or an agressive civ

 

[LordOgre]

Maybe you guys dont realize, but this is what turned a lot of people off from the demogame. The last bunch of posts have been you two wrangling over what seems like technicalities (not saying thats pointless though.)

don't worry ice2k4, some of us are hardcore addicted players, personally i enjoy reading dialogues since these things will eventually be talked about... i prefer seeing the errors we could do than do them on the way and scrap a cool game.