[DG2]Offices

[ice2k4]

Well first, before polls are put up, do we feel that we have discussed all possibilities, and are ready for such polling? I feel that there could be a bit more discussion, but then again the conversations have slowed a bit, which may reflect the fact that we have come to a general conclusion.

So firstly is there anything anyone would like to say before we rush to the polls?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I guess we can conclude that nobody has anything left to say, at least not yet...

Are we ready to poll? Once we poll, get the majority, and start to write this part of the ruleset up, maybe some others will have comments.

 

[ravensfire]

I would list each poll here, and the options you plan to include, and see if that turns up anything new - then poll the sucker and get this moving!

While I'm against "drop dead" dates, I think it would be cool to get the announcement posted around the new year, and have the first term last through the end of February. You get the general excitement of a new year, plus people that have just gotten into the game, to push it. Take that energy, and use the first week for debates in the nomination threads, and get things going!

I think that waiting until Febuary would cost some of that energy, and some of the momentum that's going right now. But that's just me!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Proposed poll options (note: I broke them down into separate questions, just for ease of reading. When we put them in a poll, we can just through them all togethere.)

Should we have deputies?
No Deputies
Deputies - runner up in election
Deputies - appointed by official-elect
Other (please explain)

Who plays the save?
President (with Chain of Command as backups)
Designated Player Pool (not necessarily elected officials)
Chain of Command (just elected officials)
Other (please explain)

What officials should we have (for Judiciary and Governors, see next questions)?
President, Domestic, Trade & Foreign, Military, Technology, Religion & Civic
President, Exploration & Settlement, Foreign Affairs & Trade, Science & Infrastructure, Culture & Religion, Military
President, Domestic, Military, Infrastructural
Other (please explain)

How should the Judiciary be organized?
1 Chief Justice
3 Justices (Chief Justice, Public Defender, Judge Advocate)
Other (please explain)

How many cities should a Governor be in charge of?
All Cities
5 Cities maximum (see DaveShack's proposal here)
3 Cities
An individual number as voted upon by the citizens
Other (please explain)

And...that's exactly 20 options to poll, the maximum that will fit in a poll! Hopefully there's nothing I missed - let me know if you want something to be added, otherwise I'll put up this poll (and link to it here) soon.

 

[ice2k4]

I think the last poll should include "as many as defined in a state" as we may choose to create one state with 3 cities, and one state with 5. We can always change the state amount if we dont have enough governors.

 

[Falcon02]

With "President" for save playing... are there any backups?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I think the last poll should include "as many as defined in a state" as we may choose to create one state with 3 cities, and one state with 5. We can always change the state amount if we dont have enough governors.

OK. I'll exchange 10 cities with "An individual number per Governor/province as voted upon by the citizens".

With "President" for save playing... are there any backups?

Well, yeah, we can always have the CoC as backup, but it's the President who's playing the turns. I'll add that in as well.

 

[Falcon02]

Well, yeah, we can always have the CoC as backup, but it's the President who's playing the turns.

President's the only one who can play, but with CoC backups who can't play?

I'm confused

That mean just CoC, will have players cycle around the CoC or what?

 

[DaveShack]

I dislike polls with more than 2 options for this setup stuff, because we end up with plurality votes where the smaller of options which gets less than 50% argues that most people didn't want the larger of options which got less than 50%. In polls which actually ask 2 questions, make it 2 polls.

Deputies
- yes
- no

IF deputies pass, 2nd poll, how selected
- runner-up
- appointed by official

Sure, it takes more time this way, but witness DG6, DG7, and this DG as examples where having that 3rd option ended up biting us and resulting in endless bickering and backstabbing.

 

[Falcon02]

I dislike polls with more than 2 options for this setup stuff, because we end up with plurality votes where the smaller of options which gets less than 50% argues that most people didn't want the larger of options which got less than 50%. In polls which actually ask 2 questions, make it 2 polls.

Deputies
- yes
- no

IF deputies pass, 2nd poll, how selected
- runner-up
- appointed by official

Sure, it takes more time this way, but witness DG6, DG7, and this DG as examples where having that 3rd option ended up biting us and resulting in endless bickering and backstabbing.

Though, if we agree to look at it intelligently, it shouldn't be too hard to realize that Deputies win even if the No Option gets 40%, Runner up gets 35% and Appointed gets 25%.

And then within that Runner up wins.

Though... "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers." Even if it's obvious there may still be people who complain and declare it "unjust" (see russia1292000 DG1 at the start of the Domino War)

And I'm not familiar with what happened during DG6 and DG7 (was absent for that).

 

[Ginger_Ale]

DS, are you saying you want people to vote first YES or NO, and then, if they voted YES, to vote for either RUNNER UP or APPOINTED, so we can see, first, if we want deputies, and then, if we do, how they are determined? That's fine by me. I agree with Falcon that it wouldn't be too hard to determine that, in his scenario, more people are in favor of deputies (and subsequently being runner-up), but your method is probably a tad easier and more convenient.

 

[DaveShack]

In principle that's what I'm saying, though the deputies issue is the one it is least applicable to -- it was just an example.

The hard ones are the "who plays the save" and "what offices" polls. Maybe if we don't get a hard majority, repoll with the top 2?

In DG6 we had a poll for "alternative" vs "traditional #1" vs "traditional #2". Alternative won by a razor thin margin, and then we had to listen to months of complaints about it. Likewise in DG7 we had a poll for "5CC" vs "5BC" vs "no limit". None of the options got a majority so it was counted as a progressive poll, which naturally the middle item won, but then we had people arguing against the compromise position. Of course in this game we had triumvirate vs traditional vs flexible which in retrospect, IIRC, was a tie after DLs were removed.

All that said, if we get a real majority it will be better than if we don't.

 

[DaveShack]

At the end of the last setup period, I told myself that I shouldn't be the main driver for this one. There are a couple of things that I do want to lay claim to (for example asking for the forum setup), but not the overall leadership.

So, who's going to open these polls? My previous remarks on polling were mostly aimed at ensuring we don't take a narrow plurality answer as the final answer and then end up with a disgruntled majority.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I'll put (the modified) poll up later today, I guess.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

It put it up.

It was hard to get some of the options the way you wanted them DS...hopefully we're all smart enough to figure out what we want.

 

[Joe Harker]

Spies should be under miltary command, not the foriegn office

 

[DaveShack]

That's an interesting one. Spies have some covert missions which are military-like, but they can also be used to gather information which can be used in diplomatic efforts.

Since it will be a long time before we can have spies, it's a decision which can be deferred. That's really the main point of the "build as you go" approach. We don't know today which departments might be overworked or underworked, or even if we'll be using spies. If we choose to defer the decision of who controls them until we need them, we'll have better information.