DG2 - Build as You Go Rules

[ravensfire]

Actually, there was more.

Aside from the manipulation of the ruleset, AW's duplicate accounts were not discovered until after the election. Several people were highly suspicious about various elections that did not follow the "normal" pattern of elections, and requested an investigation.

This revealed the multiple accounts (just over 10), and that 3 elections where manipulated by AW.

If you set the date on the Citizen's forum to "All", you should be able to quickly find a thread created by either Rik or Chieftess describing all of this.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

Here is the thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=152528

And I was wrong, it was more than a slim margin that poll was won by.

 

[DaveShack]

At the level of which offices are defined, here is a nutshell description of the three main alternatives. The primary difference (as I see it) between "build as you go" and "flex" is the starting set of offices, while the amount of flexibility is what distinguishes them from traditional.

• A true build as you go starts with maybe President, Governor, Judiciary, and expects to make massive changes over the 1st 2 or so terms as we decide on the fly how many officials to have and how to define their duties.
• The flex idea tries to start out being complete so would probably also have Domestic and Military and might define the starting set of duties for each, but recognizing that change is inevitable it makes it easy to change offices and duties.
• Both BAYG and FLEX have the concept of making the list of offices, and their duties, easy to change.
• Traditional would try to define all offices along with all duties of each office in advance. The usual objective for traditional is to avoid turf wars by drawing strong barriors around the offices.

After seeing the results of polls in Civ3DG6 and Civ4DG1, I'm firmly convinced that we should not even attempt to poll with 3 proposed organizational styles. I would like to propose that we poll "flexible" vs "predefined". Once that is decided, either there is work to define the offices and duties in the predefined case, or there is work to develop the framework for flexibility.

Here's a sample poll:

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?

• Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
• Flexible style, where the game starts with a loosely defined set of offices and duties which get modified as the game progresses.
• Abstain

 

[donsig]

I don't like that poll DaveShack. In essence it means we start with a whole slew of officials, just like we always do. In other words, the idea of starting with a minimal amount of officials (as I proposed) is nixed before we even get to decide if we want to use it. To put this another way, your suggestion means we make our first decision in an unfair manner.

Why can't we adopt a constitution that does not define a lot of offices and then build the remaining offices (either before we start play or as we play) within the framework of that constitution? After ratifying the constitution (but before we start play) we could also decide how difficult we want it to be to modify offices during the game.

If we get a constitution in place we could actually try using some inititives (before we actually start play) and see if build as you go is worth doing after the game starts. If we try this and it works we can play all the sooner. If we try and it doesn't work then we'll have a clearer idea how we want our ruleset to be and we'll get to play sooner.

 

[ravensfire]

Slight revision:

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?

• Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
• Flexible style, where the game starts with 1 or more offices. The number of offices and their duties which get modified as the game progresses.
• Abstain

donsig, would this answer your concern?

I'm not comfortable with your approach, though, as it would nix the traditional concept, where the offices and duties are defined and require some effort to change.

This IS a decision point that needs to be polled.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

donsig, would this answer your concern?

Yes, this wording is much better since it doesn't imply we start with a full slate of defined offices.

Ravensfire, I understand your concerns about making it too easy to change things. I think in past games we've never really been able to divide up authority in a productive manner and we're still hammering out the relationship between officials and citizens. On top of that we're on now which requires different duties than Civ III did. We need a game where we can expiriment with offices and to do that we have to allow easy changes. We could still specify a level of law between the constitution and citizen initiatives (the infamous Code of Laws). We could try starting with a blank code and pass a complete set during the game if we feel we need to stop making so many changes.

 

[dutchfire]

May I suggest we start polling things like this soon?
Februari first is nearing!

 

[DaveShack]

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?

• Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
• Flexible style, where the game starts with a loosely defined set of offices and duties which get modified as the game progresses.
• Abstain

I don't like that poll DaveShack. In essence it means we start with a whole slew of officials, just like we always do. In other words, the idea of starting with a minimal amount of officials (as I proposed) is nixed before we even get to decide if we want to use it. To put this another way, your suggestion means we make our first decision in an unfair manner.

Slight revision:

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?

• Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
• Flexible style, where the game starts with 1 or more offices. The number of offices and their duties which get modified as the game progresses.
• Abstain

I think you simply assumed too much (or too little) when you read my mock poll. Also Ravensfire's doesn't exactly hit donsig's point either. Here it is again bolded, with Ravensfire's addition in bold and an additional point in bold italic.

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?

• Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts.
• Flexible style, where the game starts with a loosely defined minimal set of one or more offices and duties which get modified as the game progresses.
• Abstain

 

[Cyc]

This is what I was referring to in the public/private polling thread, DS. Ravensfire's wording is closer to what donsig wants than your wording. Who's going to define minimal? You? Me? donsig? Why would we want to add that word?

 

[ravensfire]

Both options are going to require work to finish. Part of that second option is what will be the preset offices/duties. There shouldn't be "minimal" in there - it's introducing a limit that might not be preferred.

Keep the options generic here, fill in the details later.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

I think you simply assumed too much (or too little) when you read my mock poll. Also Ravensfire's doesn't exactly hit donsig's point either.

After making my post I realized I was reading something into your original suggestion DaveShack. I almost went back and edited my post but didn't because your wording does give the impression that we'd be defining a full slate of offices. Cyc, is right, Ravensfire's wording is closer to what I wanted.

 

[ravensfire]

Another revised version

How do you want the offices and duties to be defined?

• Traditional predefined style, where the offices and their duties are built into the law which gets ratified before the game starts. Changing the offices and/or duties would require an amendment.
• Flexible style, where the game starts with 1 or more offices. The number of offices and their duties which get modified as the game progresses. Changing the offices and/or duties would require a poll.
• Abstain

I feel there are two major differences between the two options - where the offices/duties are defined, and what it takes to change them. I think both of these should be explained in the poll.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I still don't see how the original wording implies anything about the number of offices -- "loosely defined" seems a whole lot less definite and therefore more subject to change than "one or more". But if it makes y'all happy...

typo / usage error:

The number of offices and their duties which get could be modified ... [as originally written there is no verb in the sentence ]

Also now you're missing my major point in the first half of that point, the "loosely defined" point.

... starts with 1 or more offices with loosely defined duties.

 

[ravensfire]

What if we want offices with well-defined duties that we can create/disband quickly?

That's a form of a flex government, it's it's not loosely defined.

This poll needs to be fairly general.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Again I side here with RF. He's exactly right.

I can see DS's wanting the duties to be loosely defined, so that an official may fudge a bit until a newly desired and discussed position gets approved and filled. BUT, we can word that into the over all rules with fairly concise language, allowing a broad wave of the pen, let's say, or creating a poll for the citizens to decide an issue. I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the President or maybe the Domestic Advisor has to occasionally wear a different hat to clear a bottleneck, doesn't mean the job description for that position has to be vague or incomplete or open-ended...

 

[donsig]

I still don't see how the original wording implies anything about the number of offices -- "loosely defined" seems a whole lot less definite and therefore more subject to change than "one or more". But if it makes y'all happy...
... starts with 1 or more offices with loosely defined duties.

I'm sure you don't see the implication that I see. Is that really surprising since we can't even agree on what official means?

Actually I don't like the concept of loosely defined offices. I guess I'd have to see an example of what you're talking about. I'm not suggesting we have loosely defined offices. I do now see there are clearly two two issues to be dealt with here. Not sure if we should poll them together or not.

 

[DaveShack]

A set of offices is one or more offices. That's what a set means.

Moving right along...

Here is an example of duties which are not loosely defined.

IIB. The Powers and Duties of the Secretary of State

1. The Secretary of State shall have control of the Foreign policy of our nation with the exception in the Declaration of War/Peace/Alliance and the trade of cities.

A. The Secretary of State needs the permission of the Citizens Assembly: War/Peace/Alliance or the giving away of one of our Nation's cities.
B. The Secretary of State has the power to accept a city.​

IIC. The Powers and Duties of the Secretary of War

1. The Secretary of War shall have control of all military land units with the exception of garrisons under the control of Governors and units assigned to settlers.

A. The Secretary of War may not attack a city or unit of a neutral or allied Civilization, without the permission of the Citizens Assembly.​

2. The Secretary of War shall have control of all air units.​

One example of loosely defined might be:

1. The Secretary of State is responsible for all foreign policy.
2. The Secretary of War is responsible for all military units and their movement.

See the difference?

 

[donsig]

A set of offices is one or more offices. That's what a set means.

Technically, from a strictly mathematical point of view, a set of offices is ZERO or more offices. The null set is still a set.

Once again DaveShack you zoom in on one thing and miss part of it. Ravensfire's first revised version removes the implication I'm worried about because he specifies that the number of offices can be changed during the game. Your original wording implies we have to define the set from the git go. I realize your wording doesn't say that but on a quick read that implication is there. So, are you ok with Ravensfire's first revision or do we need a poll to define poll options? (I hope.)

I'm still wary of loosely defined offices but the examples you cite would work if we use initiatives as I envision them. We could have a miltary minister responsible for all military units and their movement and still pass an initiative requiring settlers to be escorted with responsibility for the escort's movement residing with the official responsible for the settler's movement.

 

[ravensfire]

DS - that's one example of a way to do it. There are countless more. You're wanting to hogtie any flexible government into your style IN THIS POLL.

No. That should not be decided here.

Fine. I don't give a darn anymore - do it any way you care, I won't be here to complain.

See you all in 2 months or so when you get done.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

What the heck was that about? I sure wish you would allow people to see your point and be influenced by it. Stopping after the 2nd paragraph would have been quite sufficient. This is becoming a disturbing pattern.

You have succeeded in showing me that the effect of the wording I was suggesting would be to poll the corners of a box instead of along one of the edges. My style is to debate an issue to try to get others to agree, and to give them a chance to get me to change. I'm more influenced by reasoning than I am by mere statements that something needs to be changed. Is there something wrong with that?

We seem to have a difference of opinion about the relative importance of:

1. How easy vs. hard it is to change
2. How much is strictly defined vs. how much is left to interpretation (loose)

I want to be able to choose the combination easy, loose.
You're concerned about not being able to choose the combination easy, strict? (guessing here)

Turn your worry about the poll question and answers around the other way. If we have a poll which is only about easy to change vs. hard to change, then the implication is that we'll do the other dimension of the question (strict vs loose) the way we always have before, with a strict definition.

It follows that we should have a poll with 4 options, or two independent polls.