1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

DG4 Discussion: Raw Government Structure

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game III: Citizens' started by Octavian X, Nov 1, 2003.

  1. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Another idea for discussion...

    Should we stick to the current Executive Government structure? Basically, do we want to keep our current President-six ministers-governor system?

    Or, does someone have a unique idea that we can try? I'm in favor of change, just because we've used that form for too long...
     
  2. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    I would like to see if we can come up with meaningful duties and responsibilites for all 6 ministers. If not, then I would support reducing the number of ministers.
     
  3. D'yer Mak'er

    D'yer Mak'er pikmin eater

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Sweden
    i've thought some about it, and came to think of a kind of shared-leadership-structure. a simplified parliamentary system. only one chamber which everyone can nominate themselves to. the x people with the most votes enters the chamber (or all people who gets at least x votes, i don't know which is best), which divides the leadership work among themselevs.

    idea: an officials voting power in "spot votes" is proportional to how many votes the official had in the election, like a one-man political party in a parliamentary system

    legislation is also conducted by this principle, but jurisdiction should still be practised by a separate force.

    get the idea? we would have a number of officials, say 7.

    here is an example of how an election with this system could end (no offense everyone :)

    1. Donovan Zoi, 12 votes
    2. Octavian X, 7 votes
    3. Peri, 6 votes
    4. Bootstoots, 5 votes
    5. Civ General, 4 votes
    6. Ravensfire, 3 votes
    7. Zorven, 2 votes
    8. Fionn, 1 vote
    9. Donsig, 1 vote
    10. Cyc, 1 vote
      [/list=1]

      so, the top 7 makes the parliament, where DZ has more power than Zorven, but still have to rely on Peri and Raven to have majority. Fionn, Donsig and Cyc is #8,9,10 and thus can't enter the parliament.

      under his name (or in his signature), Octavian X writes "#2 senator" (or whatever we like to call our officials).

      it's up to these officials to divide the work among themselves. relevant discussion threads needs to be held updated, saves, maps, and stats overlooked, and useful discussions has to be kept alive and directed, while non-useful discussions has to be redirected or aborted.

      we must not be afraid to improve the community. our system is currently too static to work with small numbers of people. i.e labour and worker actions are always important parts of the game (and should have a dicussionthreads of their own in the government pages), while the need to discuss trade, science, and culture borders vary a lot from time to time. by electing people to positions like these we keep them from contributing to other areas of the game.

      this is, of course, just a basic idea. to make a change like this a lot of thought has to be done. but what do you think of this idea? is it something to build on?
     
  4. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I kinda like it, D'yer Mak'er. I especially like the part about "labour and worker actions are always important parts of the game (and should have a dicussionthreads of their own in the government pages)". The vote count would have to represent a COC, tho. We would need some form of accountability, which this form of government puts on shakey ground. Some how, judging from the performance of some Leaders, the workload could wind up on the shoulders of someone like DZ. That wouldn't be right. These issues would have to be addressed.

    Personally, I like the idea of keeping the Prez and the 6 Departments. But with the efforts of some people to bounce the Culture Dept., that may not happen. Of course if the Culture Dept. is closed, it would glorify DG1 and it's Culture win ('cause it might be our only one.) :thumbsup: Plus make famous our short list of Cultural Ministers!
     
  5. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    This sounds pretty interesting. What powers would this parliament have? Would everybody be able to participate via ordinary discussion threads and polls just like usual?
     
  6. D'yer Mak'er

    D'yer Mak'er pikmin eater

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Sweden
    you are right, cyc. the problem with accountability and work division would be even more felt in this system. for this problem i have came up with a few answers (which i don't know the effect of)
    • first, if we used a circulating DP responsibility, that could mabye keep all the officials involved in the progress.
    • second, as also stated in the post in the link above, the "common will" has to be codified, in this system that would in practice mean a long list of assignments for our parliament. i'm thinking of this list as an "open document", that we, like our codes, continually evolve as we gain experiences. if the parliament doesn't follow this code, the rest should be able to replace officials. then mabye the plarliament shouldn't have a legislative function. the public should. then again, it wouldn't be a parliament. a "senate", or council, assembly, would be a better word... excuse me if i'm rambling, it's late.
    • third, i really liked a thought donsig had about local politics. especially naming units to track their "home cities". this way, we could have independent city-states, and thus not need govenors, freeing up a lot of otherwise occupied "soldiers";)
    • fourh, if we used "standard" or smaller map, there would be less work to do overall. reducing supply = "increasing" demand.
    it's pretty late for me, i'll have come back tomorrow.
     
  7. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    I'm loving this idea so far. Keep it coming...
     
  8. Fier Canadien

    Fier Canadien Citizen

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    807
    Location:
    Québec, Québec, Canada
    Hey, it must not be closed. I don't want to be the last culture leader!
     
  9. D'yer Mak'er

    D'yer Mak'er pikmin eater

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Sweden
    okey! here we go :cool:! for the balance of power and work division in this assembly, i have a system i think might work:
    • a public election (example in post#3) is used to define the structure of the assembly
    • to divide political power among the elected people, there must be an odd number of mandates. these mandates are distributed among the officials, proportional to the number of votes the official got of the total number of votes recieved by the elected officials.
      in the example stated in #3 the total number of votes that led to the election of an official is (12+7+6+5+4+3+2)=39 that is an odd number, so no changes needs to be done. if it was an even number, we would need to add a mandate somewhere, so that we would always have a minority and a majority.
    • one of these officials are to become the leader of the assembly, the consul, government, etc. (personally i like the term princeps civitatis, but i'm not sure that would fit). he/she is responsible for all of the assignments given to the assembly (defined by the "common will" document mentioned in #6). he is to work out a program that deals with all these assignments.
    • this program is then taken to the assembly for voting. if it passes, these are to be considered the legal instructions which the DP has to follow. to ensure that this bill will pass successfully, the princeps civitais has to communicate with the other officials to examine their opinions. the officials, in turn, has to be active and state their concerns about a bill before voting it down.
    • the person wo got the most votes is asked to be the leader first, if he/she decline, the person with the second highest vote number is asked and so on.
    • this assembly is to be considered the voice of the people. the officials are representatives, speaking for the people who voted for them. public polls and discussions can occur, but are not considered binding. officials are not legally bound to examine and listen to the "will of the common people". discontent of this nature is shown through voting. absenteeism, however, is a different matter. but we need to define absenteeism in order to be able to punish it.
    to counter the loss of political power for the common people this system means, i was thinking about a kind of city-state, "polis", approach. the cities should be able to decide their own buildques and move their own units. then our current mayor system is far from enough ground to stand on. power has to be divided among the "citizens" living in the city. also, for aesthetical reasons, perhaps we should do something about our city naming system.

    the basic idea that i build all this on is that all the people active in the demogame should not be considered ordinary "citizens". the citizens are the actual population of the cities. we are nobles, struggling for power and glory for the home city. the concept of mayors was one of the things that were successful in dg3. another was the special projects issued by clever citizens. i am trying to develop these areas at the cost of others, which i consider inefficient and alienating (offices, govenors, polls, "elected leaders must plan and act according to the will of the people"). i am not trying to create a dictatorship here, and would like to stress that no matter what, we need a much more comprehensive "code" to regulate the game.

    thank you
     
  10. FortyJ

    FortyJ Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    An exceptional proposal D'yer Mak'er....

    I'm going to digest this a bit more and then give it another read in the next couple of days.

    Initially, I like some of what you say, probably because I like the idea of drastic changes to our system of government (basically because I think it would inject some life into the game). However, I have some reservations as well. I am concerned that this process may significantly impede our in-game progress, which seems to be directly linked to participation levels.

    Great work though... A worthy proposal such as this deserves a much better familiarity than a single reading. I will revisit this again soon.
     
  11. D'yer Mak'er

    D'yer Mak'er pikmin eater

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Sweden
    thanks 40! i'm aware that this proposal isn't yet a working system. take your time and formulate your concerns. :) now some days have passed, and i've not been able to follow the discussions recently. it doesn't seem like ideas like these are taking place in the constitutional work.

    i've been thinking about creating a citizens' group for this work. through that reform-minded citizens would be allowed to coordinate and discuss different aspects and ideas of changing the structure of the way the game is managed. currently, reformes are divided, and though striking similarities, the different political systems proposed are as many as there are reformers. if we were to find compromises and discuss theories mabye we could crystalize a good system?
     

Share This Page