[DG2] Nominations and Elections Discussion

[Ginger_Ale]

donsig, I agree we need to keep the game moving. However, like you said, why can't we just mandate that, say, 2 sessions of 15 turns each must be played every week, WHILE keeping elections month-based? I don't really see an immediate benefit of turn-based terms if you make sure the game moves steadily.

Mixing up turn-based and month-based elections would get too confusing, I think. If we're trying to generate interest, let's go with something more simple.

 

[ice2k4]

donsig, I agree we need to keep the game moving. However, like you said, why can't we just mandate that, say, 2 sessions of 15 turns each must be played every week, WHILE keeping elections month-based? I don't really see an immediate benefit of turn-based terms if you make sure the game moves steadily.

Mixing up turn-based and month-based elections would get too confusing, I think. If we're trying to generate interest, let's go with something more simple.

Agreed, although I do not think we should set the amount of turns a turnchat has to be. Let's say someone declares war on us on the third turn, that means the dp has to play out 12 turns of no instructions for that war. Instead of 2 turnchats of 15 turns each a week, maybe we should say 30 turns a week, divided into however many turnchats is nessecary.

 

[donsig]

why can't we just mandate that, say, 2 sessions of 15 turns each must be played every week, WHILE keeping elections month-based? I don't really see an immediate benefit of turn-based terms if you make sure the game moves steadily.

True. So I'll try to explain the benefits of turn based terms. Actually, I'll explain the drawbacks of calender based terms. All months are not created equally. They have anywhere from 28 to 31 days. We are also a world-wide community so that it is not always the same day or same month for all of us at any given moment. Some months are easier for us to play than others as holidays or academic schedules can either cut into or free up our time. Weekends can also be troublesome. The number of weekends in a month is not stable. Months begin and end on different days of the week and doing something on say, the 24th of each month, is not always wise. Even in real US elections we vary the date so that election day is always a Tuesday.

Basically whyat I'm saying is the calender is such a hodge podge we might as well disengage ourselves from it for the DG.

Agreed, although I do not think we should set the amount of turns a turnchat has to be. Let's say someone declares war on us on the third turn, that means the dp has to play out 12 turns of no instructions for that war. Instead of 2 turnchats of 15 turns each a week, maybe we should say 30 turns a week, divided into however many turnchats is nessecary.

First of all I don't think we should have turnchats. Let's stick with game play sessions. I don't agree that is imperative that we stop playing every time there's a war. Civ is a simulaiton game and real civs can't slow time time when war comes. I do think 15 turns is too much for one session. I'd prefer one or two turns played every day (no matter what). Not only would that simulate the inexorable movement of real time I think it would keep interest going if things moved along at a steady pace. (Of course we'd have to come up with a slightly different instruciton thread - we wouldn't want an instruction thread for each day. We'd need some standing orders system that was capable of handling specific orders as well. We'd also need a way to archive old orders.)

 

[Black_Hole]

DaveShack, this is where we disagree, I believe this is a forum based game not a chat based game. If people who go to chats are able to vote on decisions, this is not a forum based game, if this were possible, I am not sure I would want to heavily participate in discussions since my voice can be disregarded.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

New poll up.

 

[DaveShack]

The poll has been decided in favor of:

• Calendar month terms
• One nomination per citizen
• Consecutive term cap of 2 turns
• Next term elections the responsibility of a person elected at the beginning of the current term (technically this causes a problem for the 1st term)

For further discussion:

1. How do we resolve the 1st term problem?
2. What do we call the election office position in the law?
3. Should it count as an office, and therefore be limited as one of the accepted nominations and within term limits?
4. If it's not an office, should we say "selected" instead of "elected" in the law to make that distinction?

I'm really disappointed we didn't get more support for a volunteer position. These questions would not need to be answered if that had happened.

 

[ice2k4]

1st term problem? Assuming you mean if we are read to start 2 weeks into a month, how do we go about it since we have calender based terms? Simple, start when ready, and call it a half term. The law limits you to two consecutive terms, so theoretically you can serve the first, second and third in the same office. I'm not really worried that will even happen, but why don't we see when we will be ready before making this type of decision.

Call it the Electoral Administrator

electoral = elections | administrator = a person who manages

It should not count as an office unless it is given additional powers. No one would really want the job. I could understand wanting the DG1 censor position, but without any power, this job could go unfilled. Appointment by President would probably work best. (Selected)

 

[Furiey]

1st term problem? Assuming you mean if we are read to start 2 weeks into a month, how do we go about it since we have calender based terms? Simple, start when ready, and call it a half term. The law limits you to two consecutive terms, so theoretically you can serve the first, second and third in the same office. I'm not really worried that will even happen, but why don't we see when we will be ready before making this type of decision.

Nope, DS means who will run the first elections when we haven't had any elections yet? The first elections will elect who will run the elections during the 1st term, ie: those beginning towards the end of the term for the 2nd term. The first term elections could either be run by:

a. A moderator (do they have time?)
b. A volunteer (but how to select?)
c. An appointee (but how to appoint?)
d. Hold an early election just for that position (but who runs that election?)

 

[ice2k4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ice2k4 View Post
1st term problem? Assuming you mean if we are read to start 2 weeks into a month, how do we go about it since we have calender based terms? Simple, start when ready, and call it a half term. The law limits you to two consecutive terms, so theoretically you can serve the first, second and third in the same office. I'm not really worried that will even happen, but why don't we see when we will be ready before making this type of decision.
Nope, DS means who will run the first elections when we haven't had any elections yet? The first elections will elect who will run the elections during the 1st term, ie: those beginning towards the end of the term for the 2nd term. The first term elections could either be run by:

a. A moderator (do they have time?)
b. A volunteer (but how to select?)
c. An appointee (but how to appoint?)
d. Hold an early election just for that position (but who runs that election?)

Ahh, and the most logical possibility I look over.

Anyway, it doesn't look like any of the mods are active, so a volunteer who we all have no objection to. It's not like theyll have nay power over the elections. They are simply posting a few threads that ask for noms and then after posting a few polls for elections. As long as they follow a guideline we set, everything should be in place.

 

[donsig]

Well, if we adopt just a constitution (similar to the one I proposed) we could handle this problem (or any other) with a simple initiative poll (preferably preceded by some discussion).

 

[dutchfire]

I would prefer a mod personally. They should be able to make the time to post the few threads needed for term 0.

 

[zorven]

Let's also remember past elections where the 4th or 5th place finisher actually got the office, with a handful of votes out of dozens, because the top 3 were also running for other offices.

The end result there is the majority of people that voted saw their votes count for nothing. That's a common scenario under the multiple office concept, and one that just doesn't sit right with me.

-- Ravensfire

(a bit late, but thought I would throw out my opinion anyway.....)

That is my primary objection to allowing this concept.

And I think it just confuses voting. If Ravensfire is in two elections (A & B) and I think he is a swell guy, I would probably want to vote for him in both. However, this then leaves me in the position that the remaining candidates for office A will be the winner when Ravensfire declines because he won and selected office B. So, then I would rather have voted for one of the remaining candidates for office A. So should I have not voted for Ravensfire in anticipation that he would decline his win? So now I am thinking I should vote for him in election A and not election B, or maybe the other way? It just makes my head spin......

 

[zorven]

1. How do we resolve the 1st term problem?
   
   Have a nomination and vote before the game starts?
   
   
2. What do we call the election office position in the law?
   
   Election Manager
   
   
3. Should it count as an office, and therefore be limited as one of the accepted nominations and within term limits?
   
   No, it should not count as an office with respects to being able to hold multiple offices or term limits.
   
   
4. If it's not an office, should we say "selected" instead of "elected" in the law to make that distinction?
   
   Couldn't hurt to further the distinction.