Eklektikos
Eponymous
As would I, particularly since I would have voted another way had I given the issue more thought at the time 
DG3 Discussion - Demogame Rules
- Thread starter Shaitan
- Start date
Shaitan
der Besucher
Good points all. I had not broken the poll down the way disorganizer showed but only looked at the individual choices. This will be repolled shortly.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
How about this...
We bring over everything. Now, don't stop reading, hear me out. We bring over everything as a temporary government while discussion is happening on a brand new system. Remember, at the end of DG1, participation dropped off because the game wasn't going on, only the politicking.
As donsig suggests, I'd love to spend a month discussing new systems of government. However, not everybody does. If we bring over the entire system, we can discuss and impleament changes while the game is still running smoothly in the background.
We bring over everything. Now, don't stop reading, hear me out. We bring over everything as a temporary government while discussion is happening on a brand new system. Remember, at the end of DG1, participation dropped off because the game wasn't going on, only the politicking.
As donsig suggests, I'd love to spend a month discussing new systems of government. However, not everybody does. If we bring over the entire system, we can discuss and impleament changes while the game is still running smoothly in the background.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
oct: the problem in DG1 was that the original ruleset was only few rules trying to cover too much detail. so the game was broken and redoing the rules took too long because of the constitutional discussion. using only the constitution would mean giving it a plain start almost without rules.
this is something different than the dg1 start imho
this is something different than the dg1 start imho
If we were to bring over only the constitution, who would write our new rules? Also, would they have to be approved in a poll?
Shaitan
der Besucher
@bootstoots - Yes, new rules would have to pass approval polls. They would be written by whatever dedicated citizens took up that duty.
Shaitan
der Besucher
A couple tweaks are needed in the CON to make it float alone successfully and to make it easier for everybody to understand. The original is here for comparison. Suggested revision follows. Comments please!
(Note that it looks big because I used lots of white space and a list or two to make it more readable.)
(Note that it looks big because I used lots of white space and a list or two to make it more readable.)
Code:
The Constitution
We, the people of (Civ Name), in order to create an atmosphere of
friendship and cooperation, establish this Constitution of our
beloved country. We uphold the beliefs that each citizen must have
a voice in the government and ruling of our country, that government
itself is a construct of and servant to the people, that rules,
regulations, and laws should be established to facilitate the active
participation of the people and to make possible the dreams and
desires of the citizens.
A. Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution,
such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may
be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these
Articles excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so.
B. All Civfanatics Forum users who register in the Citizen Registry are
citizens of (Civ Name). Citizens have the right to assemble, the
right to free movement, the right to free speech, the right to a
fair trial, the right to representation, the right to demand
satisfaction and the right to vote.
C. The government will consist of the Executive Branch, Legislative
Branch and Judicial Branch.
1. The Executive Branch is headed by the President (Despot,
King, etc, depending on government form), the overall Leader
of the land, and shall include a Council of Leaders, each of
whom heads a department that is responsible for one major
facet of the country. Each of these Leaders will be
generally responsible for the items found under the
respective Advisor in the Civilization III game and esoteric
aspects that fall under their department name.
a. The President shall be the designated player of the
game. The President is responsible for following the
legal instructions of all Leaders during play of the
game.
b. The Council of Executive Leaders, in order of
precedence:
1. Domestic
2. Foreign Affairs
3. Military
4. Science
5. Culture
6. Trade
2. The Legislative Branch will be formed of two houses, the
Senate and the Congress.
a. The Senate will be formed of the Provincial Governors,
each of whom are a Leader responsible for the care,
management and use of the cities and lands of a
province.
b. The Congress will be formed of the entirety of the
citizenry. Congress shall have the primary duty of
creating laws.
3. The Judicial Branch will be formed of three Leaders and is
tasked with verifying legality of legislation, interpreting
rules, and determining when violations of the same. Each also
has a specific area of additional responsibility.
a. The Chief Justice is the overall head of the Judiciary
and can fill in for either lower position. The Chief
Justice is responsible for maintaining the legal books
of the country and the mechanics of Judicial Procedure.
b. The Judge Advocate functions in a role of prosecution
and attorney to the state when allegations of rulebreaking
have been made.
c. The Public Defendant functions in the roll of defense for
any and all accused citizens.
D. All offices will be filled via election with terms ending at each calendar
month.
E. No person shall hold multiple Leader positions simultaneously.
F. The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent
contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The
highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census
(the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend
the Constitution. A 2/3 majority of the Senate shall be required to
ratify said amendment.
G. Elected officials must plan and act according to the will of the people.
H. Game turns will only be progressed during a public turn chat.
I. The constitution, laws and standards of (Civ Name) can never be contrary
to the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics forums. Moderators may
veto/correct any such items.
donsig
Low level intermediary
The gameplay restriction should be a part of the constitution. It is currently in the CoL I think. It is our mosr sacred rule and should be boosted from CoL status to constitutional status. Beyond this I think there are three things (of varying importance) that should be considered by the demogame players before ratifying the constitution. in no particular order they are:
1) Article H. Consider making the turn chat optional at the discretion of the President/Despot/et al. At the very least consider how the current wording might preclude the use of offline preturns. Suggested modification:
H. Game turns can be played in a public chat. If they are not played in a public chat the DP must provide a log of actions taken during play.
2) Article C.1.b: After 2 demogames we've learned that some leader positions are more useful/powerful than others. It would be nice if a way can be found to give the leaders a more equitable division of power. By locking these leadership positions into the constitution there is a risk that the current divison of duties will remain ingrained and stifle any genuine attempts to restructure the demogame government for the better.
Suggested modification: delete section C.1.b.
3) Article D. An alternative to basing the elections on the real calender month is to base each term on a given number of turns in the Civ 3 game. A schedule could be made up ahead of time specifying the game year for each election and the game years each term begins and ends. this would guarantee each president a given number of turns to play and would remove the DP's incentive to hold chats too close together or reluctance to stop a chat and return to the forums when important decisions are needed from the people. By having this article say:
D. All offices will be filled via election.
Gives leeway to try a turn based term system while also allowing for the implementation of calender based terms if the former proves undesirable.
EDIT: make it 4 things: add an article forbidding mods from holding leadership positions. (Don't know how I forgot that one.
)
1) Article H. Consider making the turn chat optional at the discretion of the President/Despot/et al. At the very least consider how the current wording might preclude the use of offline preturns. Suggested modification:
H. Game turns can be played in a public chat. If they are not played in a public chat the DP must provide a log of actions taken during play.
2) Article C.1.b: After 2 demogames we've learned that some leader positions are more useful/powerful than others. It would be nice if a way can be found to give the leaders a more equitable division of power. By locking these leadership positions into the constitution there is a risk that the current divison of duties will remain ingrained and stifle any genuine attempts to restructure the demogame government for the better.
Suggested modification: delete section C.1.b.
3) Article D. An alternative to basing the elections on the real calender month is to base each term on a given number of turns in the Civ 3 game. A schedule could be made up ahead of time specifying the game year for each election and the game years each term begins and ends. this would guarantee each president a given number of turns to play and would remove the DP's incentive to hold chats too close together or reluctance to stop a chat and return to the forums when important decisions are needed from the people. By having this article say:
D. All offices will be filled via election.
Gives leeway to try a turn based term system while also allowing for the implementation of calender based terms if the former proves undesirable.
EDIT: make it 4 things: add an article forbidding mods from holding leadership positions. (Don't know how I forgot that one.
)
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
Let's see...
Things that come to mind immeadiately on the original...
-No deputies are mentioned. Do you plan to abolish them altogether?
-'Right to Assemble' is no longer as clearly defined. This opens a hole for political parties
-The stuff about the title of President depending on gov't may confuse some newbies
-Perhaps we could reduce the number of council positions
-No procedure whatsoever is mentioned
That last point is a particular concern to me. We need to define HOW we do things. People can, and will, do whatever they want. Either we'll be working under unwritten rules (something we don't want), or anarchy will grip the forums (another something we don't want). Or maybe I'm just feeling apocolpytic.
Also, in response to donsig's 4 points...
1) Heck no. I will fight this to the very last.
2) Rather than leaving them undefined (leader to the chaos I already fear), I suggest consolidating excutive power. Some departments do less than others. We could effectively go down to Interior Dept (combo of dom, culture), FA Dept (combo of FA, trade), Science (with control over tech trades and science slider), and Military (as is).
3) Again, define if we want calendar/year based system. I'm still afraid of unwritten rules. I wouldn't be opposed to basing elections on game years.
4) I completely agree. With the amount of procedural leeway that is becoming apparent, mods would have almost excessive power. If we made donsig's suggest change #3, a mod could come to power and put off elections indefinetly...
Things that come to mind immeadiately on the original...
-No deputies are mentioned. Do you plan to abolish them altogether?
-'Right to Assemble' is no longer as clearly defined. This opens a hole for political parties
-The stuff about the title of President depending on gov't may confuse some newbies
-Perhaps we could reduce the number of council positions
-No procedure whatsoever is mentioned
That last point is a particular concern to me. We need to define HOW we do things. People can, and will, do whatever they want. Either we'll be working under unwritten rules (something we don't want), or anarchy will grip the forums (another something we don't want). Or maybe I'm just feeling apocolpytic.
Also, in response to donsig's 4 points...
1) Heck no. I will fight this to the very last.
2) Rather than leaving them undefined (leader to the chaos I already fear), I suggest consolidating excutive power. Some departments do less than others. We could effectively go down to Interior Dept (combo of dom, culture), FA Dept (combo of FA, trade), Science (with control over tech trades and science slider), and Military (as is).
3) Again, define if we want calendar/year based system. I'm still afraid of unwritten rules. I wouldn't be opposed to basing elections on game years.
4) I completely agree. With the amount of procedural leeway that is becoming apparent, mods would have almost excessive power. If we made donsig's suggest change #3, a mod could come to power and put off elections indefinetly...
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
1. I would like to see that Deputy Positions will still be around (Vice-Presidents, Department Deputies and Govenor Deputies )
2. This is also a consern for me. We should put a total Ban on Political Parties. If a Citizens group shows signs of being a Politcal party (IE saying only vote for such and such) the Mod could tell them to stop or shout it down.
3. I say just stick with the President title, we are a Game of Democracy
4. I have mixed feelings for this one :-/. (I cant explain now since it is "O" dark 30 where I am at at the time of this post)
Eklektikos
Eponymous
Originally posted by Octavian X
Let's see...
Things that come to mind immeadiately on the original...
-No deputies are mentioned. Do you plan to abolish them altogether?
-'Right to Assemble' is no longer as clearly defined. This opens a hole for political parties
-The stuff about the title of President depending on gov't may confuse some newbies
-Perhaps we could reduce the number of council positions
-No procedure whatsoever is mentioned
That last point is a particular concern to me. We need to define HOW we do things. People can, and will, do whatever they want. Either we'll be working under unwritten rules (something we don't want), or anarchy will grip the forums (another something we don't want). Or maybe I'm just feeling apocolpytic.
Also, in response to donsig's 4 points...
1) Heck no. I will fight this to the very last.
2) Rather than leaving them undefined (leader to the chaos I already fear), I suggest consolidating excutive power. Some departments do less than others. We could effectively go down to Interior Dept (combo of dom, culture), FA Dept (combo of FA, trade), Science (with control over tech trades and science slider), and Military (as is).
3) Again, define if we want calendar/year based system. I'm still afraid of unwritten rules. I wouldn't be opposed to basing elections on game years.
4) I completely agree. With the amount of procedural leeway that is becoming apparent, mods would have almost excessive power. If we made donsig's suggest change #3, a mod could come to power and put off elections indefinetly...
I think that one or other of us has the wrong end of the stick here, although I couldn't say for certain whom.
As I understand it the plan seems to be to bring the Const over and then use it as the basis for crafting a more minimal ruleset than the one used in the game just past, so things left out of the articles of the Const itself could be detailed in a second book of laws and therefore loading the Const with mechanical detail would not be necessary.
I think that Shaitan's proposal for a constitution is a good one. I think that this will be more of a true constitution for Demogame III. I don't think we should reduce the number of council positions. We should clearly mention deputies in the constitution. I think we should base elections on the calendar rather than on turns, as the elections would be held more frequently toward the beginning and less frequently toward the end of the game. We need a total ban on political parties and a constitutional article stating the gameplay restriction. I certainly think that turns should be played out during a public turn chat, and that moderators should be allowed to hold leadership positions.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Good points raised. I saw no one disagreeing that the game play restriction should be in the constitution so I hope that can be added without further ado.
As for deputies there is no need to specify them in the constitution. There's old joke about everyone in the world falling into one of two groups. (Those who are CivFanatics and those who want to be CivFanatics. ) When it comes to constitutions the same applies. There are those who say, "if it's not in the constitution then we can't do it" and those who say. "if the constitution doesn't forbid it then we can do it!" I fall into the latter group. As long as the constitution does not forbid deputies then we can have them if we want them. Is it necessary to guarantee deputies in the constitution? Is it necessary to make any rule saying we need deputies? I think not because everyone agrees that we need deputies! Should we elect a president or other leader who disagrees and actively tries to do without a deputiy or deputies then we can choose not to return said leader to office come election time or we can take steps to write a law to force the use of deputies. If it is not a problem now then let's not make it one. By minimizing the rules we can begin to focus on areas that really need change.
As for optional turn chats, calender vs. turn based terms and mods holding leadership positions there is not unanimous agreement either way. Would things be delayed too long by discussing or even just polling these three questions before setting the constitution in stone?
As for the composition of the executive branch that may not need any constitutional change in order to restructure it. We could leave that clause of the constitution in place, have a debate and work up some laws to define each leaders duties. Once again, by simply deleting the department names from the constitution we are not necessarily eliminating them. We could still choose to have the same departments but we would not be constitutionally bound to have those exact departments. We'd have more flexibility to restructure an executive branch that sorely needs it.
As for deputies there is no need to specify them in the constitution. There's old joke about everyone in the world falling into one of two groups. (Those who are CivFanatics and those who want to be CivFanatics.
) When it comes to constitutions the same applies. There are those who say, "if it's not in the constitution then we can't do it" and those who say. "if the constitution doesn't forbid it then we can do it!" I fall into the latter group. As long as the constitution does not forbid deputies then we can have them if we want them. Is it necessary to guarantee deputies in the constitution? Is it necessary to make any rule saying we need deputies? I think not because everyone agrees that we need deputies! Should we elect a president or other leader who disagrees and actively tries to do without a deputiy or deputies then we can choose not to return said leader to office come election time or we can take steps to write a law to force the use of deputies. If it is not a problem now then let's not make it one. By minimizing the rules we can begin to focus on areas that really need change.As for optional turn chats, calender vs. turn based terms and mods holding leadership positions there is not unanimous agreement either way. Would things be delayed too long by discussing or even just polling these three questions before setting the constitution in stone?
As for the composition of the executive branch that may not need any constitutional change in order to restructure it. We could leave that clause of the constitution in place, have a debate and work up some laws to define each leaders duties. Once again, by simply deleting the department names from the constitution we are not necessarily eliminating them. We could still choose to have the same departments but we would not be constitutionally bound to have those exact departments. We'd have more flexibility to restructure an executive branch that sorely needs it.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Gameplay restriction: Append to Article H.
Deputies: As donsig noted, just because it isn't detailed in the constitution does not preclude their use, position or authority.
Optional turn chats: The constitution can be worded to allow either with no damage. The people would then have the option of not electing presidents who are anti-chat.
Calendar vs. turn - Go with calendars. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't have any sort of Civ date to turn count calculator in my brain. For elections we also need a predictable schedule. I also don't like the fact that a pres could do chats with a turn each for a year (theoretically).
Mods in office - This is staying. Period. We've gone over this and over this time and again and I'm not doing it again. We started DG2 with mods not being in office. eyrei and I both took this with a grain of salt and little complaint. That prejudicial rule was overturned by an overwhelming majority of the players and every indication since then has been that the same proportion of players support the right of mods to play the game. To put it even more point blank - if any rule is ever made specifically barring me from holding an office my last official act as moderator and last contribution of player on these forums will be to remove that prejudicial rule.
Executive department makeup - I agree that this is possible. They don't need to be specified in the CON. The branch authority is there and how that branch is organized to get the work done can be left flexible. I myself would not like to see the number of Leadership positions reduced, especially at the beginning of the game.
Right to Assembly is not the right to form parties - We'll revise to make that clear.
Overall - Don't try to address every little piddly thing. This is the framework and basic rules we're looking at. There is still the overriding presence of Article G. The will of the people shall prevail. This means you don't need to worry about somebody taking over the presidency and staying there for the whole game (unless the people want that). You don't have to worry about deputies disappearing (unless the people want that). Etceteras, etceteras...
Deputies: As donsig noted, just because it isn't detailed in the constitution does not preclude their use, position or authority.
Optional turn chats: The constitution can be worded to allow either with no damage. The people would then have the option of not electing presidents who are anti-chat.
Calendar vs. turn - Go with calendars. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't have any sort of Civ date to turn count calculator in my brain. For elections we also need a predictable schedule. I also don't like the fact that a pres could do chats with a turn each for a year (theoretically).
Mods in office - This is staying. Period. We've gone over this and over this time and again and I'm not doing it again. We started DG2 with mods not being in office. eyrei and I both took this with a grain of salt and little complaint. That prejudicial rule was overturned by an overwhelming majority of the players and every indication since then has been that the same proportion of players support the right of mods to play the game. To put it even more point blank - if any rule is ever made specifically barring me from holding an office my last official act as moderator and last contribution of player on these forums will be to remove that prejudicial rule.
Executive department makeup - I agree that this is possible. They don't need to be specified in the CON. The branch authority is there and how that branch is organized to get the work done can be left flexible. I myself would not like to see the number of Leadership positions reduced, especially at the beginning of the game.
Right to Assembly is not the right to form parties - We'll revise to make that clear.
Overall - Don't try to address every little piddly thing. This is the framework and basic rules we're looking at. There is still the overriding presence of Article G. The will of the people shall prevail. This means you don't need to worry about somebody taking over the presidency and staying there for the whole game (unless the people want that). You don't have to worry about deputies disappearing (unless the people want that). Etceteras, etceteras...
donsig
Low level intermediary
I see I struck a nerve with the mod thing. My apologies for broaching a touchy subject.
As for the calender versus turn based terms here is a link to the thread containing Sir Pleb's date calculator. It is a neat thing and would make splitting the terms up into terms based on game turns easy. We could have a schedule planned out ahead of time where we all would know the game years where terms begin and end and when nominations and elections would be held. Your worries about one turn chats are best addressed with your own words Shaitan:
One of the etceteras is one turn turn chats.
As for the calender versus turn based terms here is a link to the thread containing Sir Pleb's date calculator. It is a neat thing and would make splitting the terms up into terms based on game turns easy. We could have a schedule planned out ahead of time where we all would know the game years where terms begin and end and when nominations and elections would be held. Your worries about one turn chats are best addressed with your own words Shaitan:
One of the etceteras is one turn turn chats.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Okay, work up a sample schedule based on game years. Figure a formulation of approximately 8 chats per term with an average of 3.2 turns per chat (that was our average in DG2). That's an average of 26 turns per term. We can increase/decrease as appropriate for the relative lengths of turns later. This is more of a proof of concept exercise.
Nominations would need to be opened at turn 19, debates at turn 22 and elections held at turn 26. Nah, that's silly. Nominations would start at turn 19 and the rest of the election process would go calendar from there. 2 days to debates, 2 days to elections, 2 days to new term. So the actual number of turns in a term would be fluid at the end but the end of the term would be set in motion at a particular turn number.
Nominations would need to be opened at turn 19, debates at turn 22 and elections held at turn 26. Nah, that's silly. Nominations would start at turn 19 and the rest of the election process would go calendar from there. 2 days to debates, 2 days to elections, 2 days to new term. So the actual number of turns in a term would be fluid at the end but the end of the term would be set in motion at a particular turn number.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
I think that in a system where one turn is played at a time, a turn based election would work. Otherwise, it's a no-go for our DG. Take Shaitan's example - a DP could play from turn 19 to turn 29, thereby skipping the entire electoral process.
I still fear the unwritten rule. Following procedure that isn't official will only serve to cause more confusion than having entire books on the same subjects. I would not approve ANYTHING this vauge. Without written out procedure for basic operations of the game - investigations, constitutional amendments, elections, appointments (a minimum, imho) - we will either collapse into anarchy, or end up with one man running the show.
I still fear the unwritten rule. Following procedure that isn't official will only serve to cause more confusion than having entire books on the same subjects. I would not approve ANYTHING this vauge. Without written out procedure for basic operations of the game - investigations, constitutional amendments, elections, appointments (a minimum, imho) - we will either collapse into anarchy, or end up with one man running the show.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Isn't that right there an indication that calender based terms leave something to be desired? With a goal of 10 turns per chat and 2 chats per week we should be having 80 turns per term with month long terms. Since there are 540 turns in a full length Civ 3 game the game can be split up into 9 terms of 60 turns each. Nominations could be held at turn 40 and elections at turn 50 of each term. Oblige the DP to end chats at turns 40 and 50. Here's what such a schedule would look like:
Code:
Term Begins Nominations Elections Last turn
1 4000 BC 2150 BC 1750 BC 1450 BC
2 1425 BC 490 BC 290 BC 150 BC
3 130 BC 460 AD 560 AD 650 AD
4 660 AD 1060 AD 1160 AD 1250 AD
5 1255 AD 1455 AD 1505 AD 1550 AD
6 1555 AD 1752 AD 1772 AD 1790 AD
7 1792 AD 1872 AD 1892 AD 1910 AD
8 1912 AD 1971 AD 1981 AD 1990 AD
9 1991 AD 2050 ADEach term the DP would have to end a chat on the nomination year. Nominations would commence and run for two or three days. Another chat or two could be played but there would have to be a break at the election year. Elections could last two or three days during which time the chats could continue up to the last turn of the term year when the DP would have to stop. The next DP would begin the cycle all over. The schedule could even be formulated so that the earlier terms contain more terms than the later terms (since turns take longer as the game progresses). As long as the terms are agreed to ahead of time a schedule using game years (like the one above) is easy to construct. I do not see why such a system would be unworkable.
Shaitan
der Besucher
That looks workable to me. One thing though - we really can't plan on 80 turns per turn. It is a goal but one that is simply not reached. A more realistic amount may be 5 or 6 per chat. We had quite a few chats with no turns this game and that skewed our average.
