[DG2]Offices

[dutchfire]

I took the liberty to start up a thread like Ginger Ale's. Another important aspect of the demogames is the government. This thread will be for discussing things concerning the government. I'll first list some things I think are important, but there could be others off course.

• Approximately, how many offices should there be?
• Which offices?
• Will there be a difference between offices (like Triumvirate), or will all offices be equal?
• Will officials have the power to make decissions for them selves, with a possibility of being recalled, or will officials have to poll most/all descissions?
• Will all offices be filled every term, or will there be some offices that may be filled, but may be open to?
• How many deputies will there be for each office? Will there be deputies at all?

There may be things I forgot, so please add more topics. I'll come back tomorrow and post my own opinion.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Okay, this is probably were discussion will take the longest. In any case, here we go.

As I see it, there are three main systems we can use as a "template" for us to base our ideas off of. They are:

1. The Triumvirate (used in this game)
2. The Flexible System (proposed at the beginning of DG1; Oct_X already wrote a CoL for it, mostly complete, that we could just edit).
3. "Traditional"/Civ4-based (basically a President, and then advisors from the game as the officials, with some merging, say of Trade and Foreign, or Religion and Civic)

My thinking is that we should use the Traditional, old DG-style for now. We've seen that the Triumvirate is a tad too complicated, but I'm not sure that going to the Flexible system is the right move just yet. It may get a bit too confusing at first, who knows. We've seen that the Traditional system can work, but that doesn't mean we can't change parts of it. Here the officials I'm thinking of:

President (nominations/elections, all great people, turn playing)
Minister of Defense (all combat units, promotions, military plans)
Minister of Domestic Affairs (workers, sliders, settlers)
Minister of Trade and Foreign Affairs (trading, declaration of war/peace, gifts/threats, spies)
Minister of Science (technology path)
Minister of Civics and Religion (civics, religion, missionaries)

(that is also the Chain of Command if need be)

There - that's 6 core people. If we follow it up with a Judiciary system (which we need to overhaul, I think), that's 9. Add 1 Governor (as in Civ4, there aren't nearly as many cities, so they can all fit into 1 province), that's a grand total of 10 people. I think we should easily be able to keep 10 people active if we keep the game moving!

And yes, call me crazy, but I didn't put a DP pool there. I'm not that big of a fan of it, and without it, the President has much more to do. Anything else I missed?

I'd like the officials to post discussions and polls, but it should be so that the citizens can comment on the official's suggested instructions. But overall, everyone should be working together, and the official should use the citizens' ideas to formulate similar instructions.

I would also allow people to be appointed by the President (or next person in CoC) to an empty slot, if no one ran for it, with preference given to those that don't already have an office.

DEPUTIES - let's just make this the runner up in the election; if none, the official can appoint one

 

[dutchfire]

The Judiciary is certainly something we need to look into.
I would however give officials the power to appoint their own deputies instead of the runner-up. Otherwise running for office would automatically give you a deputy position unless more than 2 people run.

Another point to think about maybe: How many deputies will there be for each office?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Let's keep it at 1. We still want some non-elected, non-deputy citizens!

What do you think about the officials I listed (and the fact of no DP Pool)?

 

[dutchfire]

Needing just 6 people would be good, I don't know about the DP-pool. I could imagine someone would like to be president but he can't DP (especially post middle ages, these games really kill your computer).

 

[DaveShack]

There were 2 points to the DP pool:

1. There are some outstanding leaders, who would make great Presidents, but who can't be the DP every session for a whole month.
2. The chance to actually be the one to play the game is attractive to some players, who will just leave if they don't have that opportunity.

The chance to be a deputy if you lose is what prompted people to run for office in the first place. There is no point in going up against someone with a 90% approval rating, so you find a lot of declined nominations. OTOH, with runner-up deputies, accepting a nomination actually means something even if you know you're gonna lose.

 

[ravensfire]

I think the DP Pool has proven to be a success. I doubt this DG would have survived this far without it.

I've got a radical concept for the Judiciary - 1 person. (not so radical - see DG1). They make all rule decisions for that term. They will also refuse a case if they feel it is best handled by the citizens via the amendment process. Any and all trials are presented directly to the people if this Justice thinks they are valid. If either side cannot find an advocate, sorry.

Basically, they should resolve abiguities, verify amendments and neutrally conduct any trials. If a request involves something not addressed by the ruleset, it needs to go to the people for an amendment.

This would also cut down on the number of officials. I think that we only need a handful - 5 tops, plus people to watch the cities. We're a smaller group. We don't have 30 - 40 people playing. Until we get back to that level, reduce the size of the government.

-- Ravensfire

 

[greekguy]

if you want to have competitive, exciting races for President every term, then you need to have a DP pool. people either can't play civ 4, don't have the time, or would be ok with being Pres, but not DP. a DP pool lets multiple people play and no one is responsible for a whole month of playing, thus less slipups.

 

[Strider]

I think the DP Pool has proven to be a success. I doubt this DG would have survived this far without it.

-- Ravensfire

I was originally against (very strongly) the DP pool. However, I'll have to agree with Ravensfire here. It turned out to be a success... so lets keep it.

 

[ice2k4]

Ok you may for read this partially from the other discussion thread. I am only giving my opinion on the executive branch, not the judicial. Everything I type in black is rule set, everything in red is example or comment. Please critique.

Executive Branch
The executive branch shall consist of elected officials and their deputies

1. The President

A. The President is:​

I. in charge of all diplomatic negotiations
II. in charge of settlers
III. responsible for elections and nominations
IV. responsible for poll validation (censorial duties)
V. responsible for all Census conducted.
V.A. A census must be conducted once every two terms, although may be conducted as frequently as seven days.​

B. The President does not have to fill any deputy positions although he may have deputies.​

However, I would like the first President to set the precedent of having a censor for the censorial duties.

2. The Military Adviser (Secretary of War, Grand General, whatever name)

A. The Military Adviser is:​

I. in charge of all military units
II. in charge of all naval units​

Although we didn't have any naval wars in this game, I don't think that the military might should be split between the military adviser and the President who controlled the navy. In overseas battle navy means everything.

III. in charge of all spies​

B. The Military Adviser does not have to fill any deputy positions although he may have deputies.​

He could have someone to control the navy, or someone in control of the garrison of cities etc. Although during peace I see no reason for precedent.

3. Domestic Adviser

A. The Domestic Adviser is:​

I. in charge of taxes
II. in charge of culture slider
III. in charge of science (technology)​

B. The Domestic Adviser does not have to fill any deputy positions although he may have deputies.​

4. The Infrastructural Adviser

A. The Infrastructural Adviser is:​

I. in charge of workers
II. in charge of cities​

II.a. Build Queues and Citizen Production​

B. The Infrastructural Adviser must have a non-elected governor position filled by someone for each state. He may also have other deputies, and his governor's may have other deputies such as mayors.​

I. With the exception of a lack of workforce. In the event of a lack of workforce or citizens confirmed by a census, the Infrastructural Adviser may opt for no deputies (including governors.)
​

War and Wonders
War and Wonders must first be approved through a majority vote in the elected officials (cabinet, excluding deputies.) Once passed it must then go to the legislative branch (citizens assembly) and pass a majority vote.

The Judiciary was not touched upon here and the citizens assembly slightly. Let it be known that anything an elected official (and elected officials represent deputy decisions) is responsible for and performs that action that he does not have to ask for the citizens approval. The citizens may vote to veto and recall that action however.

Obviously this is just a rough draft, please feel free to input an critique. I only did my ideas on positions, not the whole workings. I left out such as types of polls and what not.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

ice2k4: First off, we haven't even truly agreed on a set list of officials. Second, it's near impossible to start WRITING the ruleset only 10 posts into this thread. BTW, use indents please (and capitalization).


ravensfire, a 1 person Judiciary sounds good to me. I've never liked all those positions within the system (JA? CJ? PD? Why not just 3, or 1, justice, all equal?). It also sounds much quicker, and helps people to focus on the game, not the rules of the game.

DP Pool is fine with me, either way.

President, Domestic, Trade & Foreign, Military, Technology, Religion & Civic, Justice, Governor -- that's 8 people, not too bad (not including DP Pool, but that's seperate). We could even combine Domestic and Technology if we want to.

Anybody have any objections to using the above-mentioned officials? Comments?

 

[ice2k4]

ice2k4: First off, we haven't even truly agreed on a set list of officials. Second, it's near impossible to start WRITING the ruleset only 10 posts into this thread.

I know we haven't agreed upon anything. I didn't mean to start writing a ruleset as I clearly stated I left most things out that a ruleset would include. I simply answered the questions:

# Approximately, how many offices should there be?
# Which offices?
...
# How many deputies will there be for each office? Will there be deputies at all?

BTW, use indents please (and capitalization).

Tried using indenation, but when i submit or edit the post, the forum ignores my indentations. (Ive indented with space bar, as I can not use tab, since tab just switches you to something else on the webpage, such as other links.) Capitalization is used where it should be. If you read it said "The President is:" all lines that follow should be lower case since they are in the middle of a sentence.

Is there a way to indent without using the dreaded

 bbcode on these forums. It'd be quite useful to know.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Ah, ok, that was your way of answering the question. My bad.

You can indent using the [indent][/indent] tags.

PS: Did you forget some sort of Foreign/Trade advisor?

 

[ice2k4]

No problem. And thanks for the tip, I'm going to format it now for bet readability.

No, I described trades as diplomatic negotiations, which I gave to the President.

 

[GenMarshall]

I would say we go with the combination of the Flexible System and the Traditional. I realy disliked the Triumvirate mainly because they are too limited and plus they are not allowed to have deputies.

 

[DaveShack]

I know we haven't agreed upon anything. I didn't mean to start writing a ruleset as I clearly stated I left most things out that a ruleset would include.

I'll use this comment to bring up a point which we might want to have in its own thread. You say there are other things a ruleset would include, but I would say don't be too hasty in assuming a complex ruleset is a good thing. Specifying procedures for how officials should do their tasks has turned out to be bad more often than it has been good. Once someone disagrees with our in-game direction, a detailed process provides a built-in opportunity for the minority to use the rules to stifle the majority.

Just define what the offices do, in broad terms.

I'm going to draft my own suggestion for offices here, having read but not memorized the other proposals and not referring back to them... in no particular order:

• President
• Exploration & Settlement
• Foreign Affairs & Trade
• Science & Infrastructure
• Culture & Religion
• Military
• Governors

Phase out exploration & settlement when there is nothing left to settle and/or explore.

Governors should be a sliding scale which results in a max of 5 cities per, and evenly distributed. Redistribute cities to governors as often as needed. We can use the social (role play) aspects of creating province / state divisions, but again limit the proceduralism aspect. The settlement position might phase out around the time a 2nd governor is needed.

Cutting the judiciary to one might help with elections a bit, though it could also hurt the people who don't have Civ4.

Let's make it easy for officials to delegate their authority. Less rules may help with that.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Those work fine for me, DS. One note, though; since I don't like offices that won't have much to do for a large portion of the game (Exploration & Settlement, as you said yourself), why not delegate Exploration to the Minister of the Military/Defense* and the Settlement to the Minister of Science and Infrastructure?

* Or, if we want to be a bit more organized, we could do the following: President controls non-combat units, Military controls combat units. No exceptions, except Missionaries go to Culture & Religion (speaking of which, who's is charge of civics?).

And lastly, for your governor proposal, are you saying it would go like this: 1 governor for our first five cities. The next city, and up to 4 others, belong to the next province? When would you determine the borders of the provinces, especially if they need adjusting? What I'm trying to say is, if we found our 6th and 7th city on both the western and eastern side of nation, would you split up the current province into two 3- and 4-city provinces?

Otherwise, very nice. Once we can agree on a list of officials, then we can easily just start writing what areas of the game they are responsible for (and let's try to keep this brief, not very detailed).

 

[DaveShack]

I was thinking more along the lines of eliminating the post of exploration & settlement after we're done exploring and settling, like a built-in sunset clause. That way we can have a military leader who is advocating building offensive and defensive capabilities, and a exploration leader who wants scouts and caravels. Just a thought, and one we'll have to see how the people react to it.

For the governors I was thinking more along the lines of splitting the existing territory when we get to each boundry:
5
3 3
4 3
4 4
5 4
5 5 =10
4 4 3 =11
. . .
5 5 5 =15
4 4 4 4 =16
. . .
5 5 5 5 = 20
5 4 4 4 4 = 21

 

[DaveShack]

Once we can agree on a list of officials, then we can easily just start writing what areas of the game they are responsible for (and let's try to keep this brief, not very detailed).

We could also start with a list of areas of the game, and then amalgamate that into officials. That way we don't miss something like civics. In a previous life (game ), I asked people to identify and record the decisions they needed to think about while playing a game so that we could make such a list, and got no traction. Perhaps now that we have more civ playing under our belts, someone (preferably several someones) would accept that assignment?

 

[dutchfire]

Great People for example can win you the game if used correctly. I think someone should be watching GPP-odds in the cities (maybe the governors themselves). This way, we won't end up with >60% odds of getting a great artist like in this game.