[DG2] Offices Poll

[Falcon02]

Not necessarily. The two actions, becoming a deputy and removing a deputy, wouldn't need to be linked in the law. Having an official be able to fire a deputy is pretty rare in the DG, in fact I'm not sure if we've ever done it.

If we allow a Leader to fire his deputy, then if he doesn't like his runner up, he'll just fire him and get one he wants... thus negating the point of the runner up.

 

[Chieftess]

If we allow a Leader to fire his deputy, then if he doesn't like his runner up, he'll just fire him and get one he wants... thus negating the point of the runner up.

What about letting the president do that? I remember we did that a few times - or, even letting the people impeach the deputy (of course, that often takes a week, and is almost pointless if the term's about to end).

 

[DaveShack]

Why so much emphasis on leaders who don't like their deputies? We would never have issues like that, would we?

The whole point of using runners-up would be to give people a reason to run against the high-powered vet. Even if they lose, they get a role in the government. No matter how small that role is, it provides some compensation for the anticipated beating from entering the election to begin with.

 

[Falcon02]

DS I can agree with that, but the ability to "Fire" the deputies would then have to be outside the Leader's direct control, as CT said, either have the Pres. or the People "approve" such a request. Which I would be fine with.

 

[ice2k4]

I think forcing a deputy upon an official undermines the official and may make the job less appealing. You run a good point of encouraging running for office. Im kind of torn on this issue.

 

[donsig]

Not necessarily. The two actions, becoming a deputy and removing a deputy, wouldn't need to be linked in the law. Having an official be able to fire a deputy is pretty rare in the DG, in fact I'm not sure if we've ever done it.

The two actions would not have to be linked by law but if the law says the runner up is the deputy then I'd say a darn good reason would be needed to remove the deputy. By letting the official hire and fire the deputy at will we have a better chance of getting a deputy who would run the department as the official would - which seems more in line with giving the people what they voted for. Having the runner up serve as deputy can lead to citizens of opposite views within one department which can lead to problems. (See term two of Civ III DG1.)

I voted other for which offices to have. It seems to me we need a President, Domestic, Military and Foreign departments. I don't see the point of seperate trade, science or culture departments. These could be sub-departments within the major departments and could be filled via appointments.

I also misunderstood the governor question (I think) and voted in both categories even though I voted yes instead of no.

 

[ice2k4]

Just want to note the huge turn around in the Judiciary polling. Looks like we will have three justices after all.

 

[donsig]

The whole point of using runners-up would be to give people a reason to run against the high-powered vet. Even if they lose, they get a role in the government. No matter how small that role is, it provides some compensation for the anticipated beating from entering the election to begin with.

If we let elected officials pick their own deputies they can still pick from those who lost an election so I'm not buying into your argument. If someone doesn't have the guts to run and get beat they don't deserve a job anyway.

And if we gave citizens some rights then even non-elected officials could contribute to the game.

 

[Falcon02]

And if we gave citizens some rights then even non-elected officials could contribute to the game.

What's your idea to help citizens contribute more to the game? Right now I can't really think of anything other then general forum discussions, forum polls (both we've always done), and the DP pool (relatively new concept to me, but done last DG).

 

[donsig]

What's your idea to help citizens contribute more to the game? Right now I can't really think of anything other then general forum discussions, forum polls (both we've always done), and the DP pool (relatively new concept to me, but done last DG).

Here's an idea:

GET RID OF THE TURN CHATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will stop all the baloney of officials giving last minute and mostly unseen orders.

How about this one:

Make sure elected officials know they must follow the wishes of a majority of the citizens. Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.

Try this one on for size:

Do away with the one month terms and base terms on game turns. Play the game at a steady pace no matter what happens in the game.

These aren't new ideas. They've been suggested time and time again. The only new suggesiton I have is to actually try some of these once, just once and see what happens.

 

[Falcon02]

Here's an idea:

GET RID OF THE TURN CHATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will stop all the baloney of officials giving last minute and mostly unseen orders.

I personally view the Turnchats as a RIGHT of the citizens, I know you disagree with me on that, but it's an avenue of participation for Citizens. It allowed me to go from random citizen to military leader. It is a check on the DP the citizens have. I likely would not have participated in the Demogame beyond the first term of Civ 3 DG1 if it weren't for the turnchats. As such I will try my best to ensure they stay a part of the demogame.

On the issue of last minute major orders, I agree, turnchats should not be used as replacement for instruction threads, if something can be anticipated instructions should be given in the forums.

Make sure elected officials know they must follow the wishes of a majority of the citizens. Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.

I can agree with this one.

Do away with the one month terms and base terms on game turns. Play the game at a steady pace no matter what happens in the game.

How does this increase the rights of citizens? How does this increase their ability to participate, especially with the participate? Terms can get dragged on with turned based terms. The "steady pace no matter what happens" (assumable to combat my previous point) I fear would take rights from the citizens as major events could occur in game and the DP would be able to continue on without taking it to the forums to get citizen feedback.

 

[ice2k4]

Make sure elected officials know they must follow the wishes of a majority of the citizens. Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.

I disagree on this one because of this past demogame. I feel the official should not be bound to initiatives. If he opts to he can, he can even post his own initiative polls, yet I think that there is no real need for an official if binding polls dictate everything. What makes this any different than a Succession Game? The official, in my view, should hold discussion and post informational polls and then make a decision based on his views and he may and should take into account the citizens views, although he does not necessarily have to follow the informational polls.

Example being a binding poll which votes 6-5 in favor of something. It's a close vote and he is still strongly opposed to the decision, even after discussion and the poll. He should still be able to go with the 5 vote instead of the 6 vote.

If leaders make irrational decisions, then impeach.

 

[Falcon02]

The heart of the demogame has always been "the will of the people"

Officials are there to plan out and carry out orders in accordance to the "will of the people."

If the people choose as a whole to make a decision that causes us to lose, then it's the official's duty to carry out those orders even if they know it's gonna end in a loss. A decision like that can only be overturned by another more recent poll. Even if an official disagrees they should be bound to forum polls.

In this democracy the citizens are like a Senate/House/Parliament, as such their polls should be legally binding.

 

[GenMarshall]

The heart of the demogame has always been "the will of the people"

In this democracy the citizens are like a Senate/House, as such their polls should be legally binding.

I whole heartly agree to this and your statemnt. The power lies within the people, not one leader.

 

[DaveShack]

Allow citizens to post BINDING polls without restriction. The last constitution was written this way but whenever a citizen tried to post a poll it was shot down for various technical reasons.

Not exactly... only the polls which violated the standards, as written, got shot down, and then not all of them.

Anyone should be able to post a binding poll. I took my first major stand on this issue back in DG3 and have maintained that position.

All binding polls should meet certain required minimum quality standards. Those standards should be set by the people, and polls which fall short should not be binding. The standards we have historically agreed on are:

• Polls about an individual or affecting strictly an individual as a personal matter must be private. These polls include elections, recall, confirmation, guilt/innocense, and sentencing.
• Polls must be stated in a fair manner, as impartially as possible given the circumstances.
• All relevant options must be included.
  Spoiler Historical reference :

  the poll that I demanded as a citizen back in DG3 was an issue because the decision by the official left off a key option. The 1st poll options were something like "research toward democracy" vs "research toward military tradition" with toward democracy winning, but the official then used that result to say the citizens had decided "research directly toward democracy". I polled getting economics first to enable us to get Smith's, which was then voted down "because my poll was offensive to the official". We ended up wasting a prebuild that game because we went to democracy first.
• An ordinary poll cannot change the law. The process specified in the law, normally an amendment process, is the only way to change the law.
• An official may not use a poll to get permission to break the law. If the official insists on breaking the law, then just do it and let the citizens decide on guilt and possibly sentencing.

The private vs public question, which Donsig is referring to obliquely, has been decided in different ways in different demogames. Most of the time, the rule has been (paraphrased) "all polls which are not required to be private must be public". This demogame, what the people wanted is clear if you take the trouble to read the discussion on the subject, and that was "all binding polls not required to be private must be public." The law was poorly written so it didn't say exactly that, but the will of the people on the matter (at the beginning of the game) was known.

This game we can, and possibly will, make a different collective decision on public polling. But binding polls still should be required to follow polling standards. Sure, that means restrictions, but the restrictions are intended to make the poll fair for everyone, not to limit the ability to post a binding poll -- everyone should have that right.

 

[DaveShack]

Here's an idea:

GET RID OF THE TURN CHATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That will stop all the baloney of officials giving last minute and mostly unseen orders.

Sorry, this position is based on a fallacy, that existence of a chat causes last minute orders. The facts show otherwise.

The existence or absence of an actual chat does not affect "last minute and mostly unseen orders". Pick any random instruction thread in any of the last 3 or 4 games, and you will see as many as 90% of all the officials posting no instructions for their area, or instructions which are so vague as to be meaningless. This holds whether there was a chat scheduled or not, and whether the chat was attended or not.

The only definitive cure for this disease is to take an office and be one of the officials who posts instructions ahead of time. If you can't do that, then you have little credibility to complain about it. Don't get me wrong, you certainly do have a right to complain, but such a complaint from someone who is effectively inactive anyway carries no more weight than a whisper in a stiff breeze.

Now I'll take a turn on the soapbox. How an official communicates instructions is unimportant compared to what those instructions are! Why is this the case? Because if the people have said what they want, in a discussion or poll, then the official must follow what they people say. The people decide "settle on spot A" -- does it really matter if the domestic advisor writes "settle on spot A" in the forum or if that is said in some other way? No, as long as the instruction matches what the people want, there is no difference between the communication methods.

If the people do not say what they want, then they get what they deserve. If there is no input on settlement and the official says to settle on spot B, the people are at fault for failing to make their preference for spot A known. How the official communicates "spot B" does not affect the amount of input given by the people because there was already an opportunity to give input and it was not taken.

The third case is one where there is no opportunity to give input, for example an in-game question which must be answered before the game can proceed. If the question has been anticipated then the people have had their opportunity to give input, and the preceeding paragraphs hold. If the in-game question has not been anticipated then it is impossible to give premeditated input. In an offline environment, one person (the DP) must decide, solo. In a chat environment, we have a choice to make in the law -- either one person decides solo, or many people contribute to that decision.

 

[DaveShack]

If the people choose as a whole to make a decision that causes us to lose, then it's the official's duty to carry out those orders even if they know it's gonna end in a loss.

Almost right -- I'd probably resign and let the fool who put the losing option forward be the one who gets the "fun" of seeing the resulting defeat.

 

[donsig]

Sorry, this position is based on a fallacy, that existence of a chat causes last minute orders. The facts show otherwise.

My position is not based on a fallacy. Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no last minute orders period. Nice and simple, no arguing about what a word means.

I don't care if 90% (or 99%) of the posted orders are vague (or if an official fails to post orders). We have a DP to there to make any needed decisions. Could it be that the existence of the turn chat contributes to the vague and non-existent orders? Or could it be that our level of elected officials is lowered by the fact that turn chats turn some people away from the game?

My time is more limited than it used to be (since I'm working a full time and a part time job and going to school part time). Just because I don't have time to be an official should not mean my right to speak out on game issues (both Civ III and DG) should be curtailed. DaveShack, if you really want increased participation here then you should be doing what you can to include as many people as possible - people like me (and I think yourself as well) who have limited time and people who live in different time zones than the normal EST time slot for turn chats. There should be room in the DG for those who want to participate alot and those who want to participate a little. By simply removing the turn chats and ensuring that all participation is through the forums you will open things up for many who do not join in due to the turn chats.

And, yes General Falcon, there are those who have been driven from the game by those turn chats. I understand some are drawn to them but not all and they do have there detrimental effects. Why won't you all try just ONE game without them?

If you must keep the turn chats then make them just social events where the DP explains what is going on but doesn't take advice from anyone. This can be done by muting all attendees so that no advice can be given.

@ice2k4: I see you still don't get it. Giving citizens the right to trump officials is not the same as castrating officials nor does it mean everything must be polled. It simply means citizens can ensure an official acts a specific way on a specific issue no matter what the preferences of the official is.

I agree that any binding poll must be fair. I'm not so sure it is possible to create standards that are usable, especially if the silly notion that a poll can be informational only is continually bandied about.

@General Falcon02: By playing at a steady pace I meant two or three turns everyday no matter what.

As for the public versus private poll issue I'd like to remind everyone that we played quite a few demogames before there was such a thing as a public poll. I realize private polls have their drawbacks but so do public polls. This last DG was the first one played where we had a user's group that prevented a person from using multiple logins to sway a vote. That was actually instituted after the game started and so there was no discussion about the pros and cons of the two voting systems with the user group in place, making any pre-game discussion about them out of date. Also, the rules of that game were not so clear cut since I recall valid arguements in favor of the legality of private initiative polls.

As for polls not being able to change the laws I'm not so sure about this. It can certainly be argued that judicial reviews can and do change the law. While I prefer amendment procedures I see nothing wrong with a citzen's initiative poll being used to over-ride a judicial review's interpretation of the law. I guess in the end I agree that polls should not change laws but I think they should be allowed to interpret laws and any such interpretation poll should should trump judicial reviews. It's a touchy area since it is always possible for a citizen's interpretation poll to be blatantly out of whack with existing law - which means interpretation polls would have to be reviewed by the judiciary in a manner similar to that of proposed laws.

EDIT:

The third case is one where there is no opportunity to give input, for example an in-game question which must be answered before the game can proceed. If the question has been anticipated then the people have had their opportunity to give input, and the preceeding paragraphs hold. If the in-game question has not been anticipated then it is impossible to give premeditated input. In an offline environment, one person (the DP) must decide, solo. In a chat environment, we have a choice to make in the law -- either one person decides solo, or many people contribute to that decision.

But how many things are truly surprises and how many were obviously coming but missed by an inattentive citizenry (which, BTW, includes all elected officials)? Think back to DGIII term three when I refused Monty's demands to remove our troops from within the borders of his new city. I saw that coming and alluded to it before the game play session but nothing came of it. Remember that officials can give conditional and standing (and even conditional standing) orders. I see no reason for leaving open the option of last minute advice or orders during the game play session.

Also, once that option is opened then we must face the question of who gives the orders or advice. Is it right in a demogame to exclude the voices of mere citizens during the chat? IShouldn't citizens have the same rights in the chat that they enjoy in the forums? If not then we've created a scenario whereby officials can bypass citizens rights! The more one thinks about turn chats (objectively) the more one sees how badly they affect the demogame.

 

[DaveShack]

My position is not based on a fallacy. Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no last minute orders period. Nice and simple, no arguing about what a word means.

You are asserting
No turn chats -> (implies) no last minute orders.

This is equivalent to
Having last minute orders -> there was a turn chat (the contrapositive)

I will assert
There has existed a session which had last minute orders
That session did not have a turn chat
Therefore there is a contradiction to the contrapositive, that having a last minute order implied there was a turn chat. The contrapositive is shown to be false.

Therefore the original assertion, that not having turn chats implies (a.k.a. causes) not having last minute orders, is also false.

Now, a statement which is known to be false is a fallacy.

Please move beyond the turn chat as the source of all evil and join with me in working against the true cause of our problems, which is a general degredation of demogame fun. I will theorize (meaning it is not proven) that one contributing factor to the decline of demogame fun is advocacy of extreme positions.

Edit: corrected the "therefore" clause to insert not on both sides.

 

[donsig]

I stand corrected. I should not have said Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no last minute orders period. I should have said:

Logically, if there are no turn chats then there are no orders which are not posted in the forum before a game play session starts period.

We all know that last minute orders are not a problem (at least compared to orders posted after the game play session starts) as long as 1) they are posted by the appropriate official before the game play session starts and 2) in all other respects they are legal orders. We also all know the trouble with turn chats is they take away from the decision making abilities (or contributions) of citizens who do not (or cannot) attend said turn chats.

Please move beyond the turn chat as the source of all evil and join with me in working against the true cause of our problems, which is a general degredation of demogame fun. I will theorize (meaning it is not proven) that one contributing factor to the decline of demogame fun is advocacy of extreme positions.

I will if you will. Are you willing to accept a ruleset that allows private polls and offline game play sessions (as well as public polls and turn chats)? I see nothing wrong with my advocation of extreme positions especially when it comes to protecting my right to participate in the demogame in a fun and meaningful way.

If you really want to counteract the decline of demogame fun then do something to ensure people can participate fully in the decision making process. The best way I see of doing that is to return to the original idea of the demogame as a forum based game. (Which I don't really see as an extreme position.) Another way is to ensure citizens (as a group) have the final say in game play desicions. (Again, something I don't see as an extreme position.)

If you insist on calling my positions extreme then so be it. But please acknowledge that fact that I am quite willing to leave the door open so to speak. The best ruleset we ever had was the one for Civ III DGIII. No CoL, just a constitution that was intentionally vague so as to allow citizens to choose how they wanted things. It did not make turn chats mandatory nor did it ban off line game play sessions. What's wrong with that sort of open ended ruleset? It lets the citizens decide (by their votes) if they want a DP who will play online or off and actually allows both to happen during the course of the same game.

We could do the same thing with public and private polls. BTW, why is it I'm called on the carpet for my extreme views (getting rid of turn chats or allowing private polls) when those who want to ban offline game play sessions or ban private polls are not seen as holding extreme positions?