[DG2] Decisions and how to make them

[Chieftess]

I agree with those principles you wrote up.

Honestly, why do we need to explain what a "mandate" is, what a "initiative" is, and what an "approval" is? Imagine trying to explain to a newbie why we've divided polls like this. Who cares? If it doesn't add to the fun of the game and just makes things more confusing, why bother?

Right. I don't care either. I'm not even sure what this "approval", "recall", etc. stuff is (a 2nd vote just for everyone to vote again that they approve or disaprove?... too much red tape). And yet, we wonder why no one wants to join. I'll tell you why - it's when we add so many rules and micromanage every aspect of the game that it becomes tedious. To a newbie, they're thinking, "I've gotta learn THIS!? Bah, I'm going to the Succession Games forum".

Remember the good old days when one discussion and one poll was all we needed?

i.e., "Do we follow donsig's city settlement plan - yes/no?".

No primary, then binding poll, no poll to approve the previous poll. It was nice an simple, and new members could follow along easily.

 

[DaveShack]

There were a couple of "special" kinds of polls added along the way.

When someone gets appointed to a position, it could be said that the person doing the appointment has too much power. We added an optional confirmation poll where the citizens could approve or disapprove of the nomination.

The recall poll is exactly the same thing it is in RL. An official is doing a bunch of stuff the people don't want (or not doing what they do want), but not anything illegal so it's not something the Judiciary or Mods can do anything about. Without a recall poll, we might find out about this problem a week into the month but have no recourse until the end of the month three weeks later when the next elections come along.

I complained a lot during the ruleset discussion this time last year, about excessive proceduralism in the Triumvirate system. We need to just set a course and sail along until the prevailing winds change, to keep people involved in the game, instead of reacting to each gust along the way.

 

[Chieftess]

I've never even heard of a recall vote. BTW, what's "Proceduralism"?


Some of us aren't political buffs, you know.

excessive proceduralism in the Triumvirate system

I think statements worded like this turn people away. Think think of complicated red tape.

 

[DaveShack]

I complained a lot during the ruleset discussion this time last year, about excessive proceduralism in the Triumvirate system.

I've never even heard of a recall vote. BTW, what's "Proceduralism"?


Some of us aren't political buffs, you know.



I think statements worded like this turn people away. Think think of complicated red tape.

Arguing against "excessive proceduralism" turns people away?

Imagine what it would be like if I were trying to obfuscate.

 

[DaveShack]

Let's pick this one back up please.

In the Ruleset Proposal thread, I posted this:

Officials shall plan and act according to the will of the people, which may be determined from citizen input in one of the following ways, listed in priority order, highest priority first. A decision may be overruled by a later decision at an equal or higher priority.

1. A binding poll, which may be opened by any citizen, including the responsible official.
2. A discussion which predominantly favors one course of action over the alternatives.
3. The public's agreement that the official should make the decision on their behalf, as evidenced by lack of discussion, polling, or request for polling on the matter.

I saw the following comments:

So you believe that if a discussion is going 8-2 in favor of a decision there is no need for a poll? What about the citizens who did not have time to post in the discussion. I believe that if there is even one citizen who shows discontent of the majority decision in a discussion, then a poll is necessary.

My reply is, yes I do think that such a strong discussion, in the absense of an explicit request for a poll, does indicate the WOTP and should be used as the basis for instructions. If those 1-2 people feel so strongly about their position, they can request a poll or even post one themselves. That is the only difference between my proposal and the unwritten rule that we had in the Civ3 DG -- back in the day , a poll posted by a mere citizen was not binding.

I didn't see any other comments, though admit I might have missed some.

In my opinion, this is by far the most important change we need to make to the DG1 constitution before we start DG2. Let's get this nailed down so we can move on.

 

[DaveShack]

From the Judiciary thread:

Just goes to show I don't understand your distinction between initiative and referendum. All I know is (according to your definition) one covers the here and now while the other covers subsequent decisions as well (has the force of law as you put it).

It was a bad idea to have that distinction. You'll see in this game's proposal I eliminated the difference between referendum and initiative and said (or at least tried to say) that a later poll can reverse an earlier one.

A better idea on duration would be to include the intended duration in the poll itself. For example "Shall we stay at peace for the next 40 turns (yes/no/abstain)." Successful polls of this type can be recorded in a common place as currently active long-term decisions, and edited out when no longer in effect.