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 Govt: Permissive vs Restrictive framework

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game III: Citizens' started by ravensfire, Oct 21, 2003.

  1. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    I don't want a system that details every situation and what actions should be taken in that situation. I want Leaders that have the flexibility to lead and to have a sense that they are not just robots performing a function. Like I said earlier, I like our DG3 system except that there needs to be a few more details. We have seen the problem areas with this rule set. There have been a couple of attempts to fix them that have failed. One example of what our current system needs is defined repsonsibilities for the leaders.

    I think we could proceed by taking one of 4 different rulesets and going though it to modify what we want. The 4 rulesets are: DG2, DG3, ravensfire DG4 frameworks, and FortyJ's proposal. One is very detailed, one is not, and the other 2 seem in between. Of course, by starting with one of those it does mean we are locked into anything within, but it gives a place to start. It seems that in most projects the hardest part is coming up with the first draft. Well, we have 4 first drafts to pick from. Lets pick one and start working.
     
  2. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago

    Actually, zorven, I like the way that Ravensfire is handling this because it does allow us to focus on one area at a time. Limiting our scope to a piece at a time will produce a stronger document in the end.

    How about this? For each topic that comes up, we can have a citizen represent one of the four documents(ok, maybe no one will stand up for our DG3 offering) and include his findings in the discussion. This may be a way to determine what we have done right, and where we have gone wrong.
     
  3. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Poll will be posted tonight due to issues at work.
     
  4. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    They weren't serious proposals. That was just my way of pointing out some of the questions that will continue to arise as long as have the forum / chat duality and try to give each equal weight.

    I'm not quite sure what poll is to be posted. Doesn't look like we're any closer to deciding anything. What is the point in picking the basis of our ruleset when we haven't even figured out what the responsibilities of our leaders are to be?
     
  5. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I'm sorry donsig if I didn't state my meaning very well, but the quote you posted above was me talking about DaveShack's reply, not yours. I followed that remark with a reply to you.

    DS = DaveShack

    I also agree that it's too early for a poll on this issue, ravensfire. We're just getting into the meat of the discussion. :)
     
  6. Giaddon

    Giaddon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Messages:
    7
    I support a more loose construction, that way, the game experience (hopefully) evolves during play, instead of following pre-defined rails.
     
  7. Octavian X

    Octavian X is not a pipe.

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,428
    Location:
    deceiving people with images
    Frankly, after watching the way that this game unfoleded, I doubt a loose framework will work. Yes, I do like the idea of giving leaders flexibility, etc. Ideally, it's the way we play the demogame: a short, basic ruleset.

    However, with the mindset that we play, starting out with a loose ruleset will fail. This has nothing to do with the laws. It has everything to do with the players, and the way they play.

    I can already see it: We'll set up a nice, loose framework for the game. Things will start smoothly enough, until one leader steps on the toes of another. Claiming that one is overstepping bounds, more laws will be put in place. Read: what happened in Term 3.

    It would then seem better just to save the trouble and set up a nice, restrictive framework now, and prevent explosive crisis in the middle of the game.

    That's where I stand, unless someone feels like pointing out the error in my ways. ;)
     
  8. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Donsig, I'd like to explain what happened in Term 3, in hindsight.

    On the evening of July 2 (EDT), the chat went pretty well for the first three turns. On that third turn, however, an Aztec settler built a city next to our stack of units and promptly demanded that we move the troops or declare war. You chose the latter. This actually wouldn't have been a problem had a slight miscommunication not occurred. The chat, which was fairly spammy and chaotic before the incident, made it fairly hard for the DP to communicate what was going on the game, and when war was declared myself and a couple of other people got the idea that you had declared war unilaterally and attacked, or that you positioned your troops in their territory intentionally wanting them to give you that message so that you could then declare war. It soon began to seem like you were running away with the save as the city was razed and several settler stacks were ambushed, plus MA's started to be signed, and PI discusson began in #debates. Given the circumstances, you had every right to do that, but the miscommunication made it seem like a unilateral declaration by you followed by attacks on the Aztecs. Zarn got fed up with this and refused to allow you to sign an MA with Greece against Aztecs (I believe it was with Greece). When you disregarded this instruction, anger increased by quite a bit and a PI was filed around that time. Several more people joined my side in this issue. We considered this a valid instruction, though I do understand why it was found to be invalid it was still thought by us to be valid, as the FA leader had specifically rejected a treaty. It was actually on that point that most of us were the most angry about, not the Aztec war. As all hell broke loose in the chatroom, it became apparent that we should stop the chat to reassess the internal situation in the forums, and we requested you do so, but you refused, even after the majority of the people in the chat supported the ending of the chat. This was considered to be a breach of the will of the people as represented by the chat participants, and also was a denial of the forum-goers to have a say in this until Turn 10. I do still think you should have stopped the chat, as it would have given the forum users a chance to voice their opinion on this issue and the situation would likely not have gotten as out of control as it did. As you kept going, the people in opposition to this grew more and more angry, and formed a chatroom channel to discuss this incident. The triple incidents of the Aztec war, the ignoring of FA, and the refusal to stop the chat built on itself in our minds and the momentum against you grew until it reached a level where nothing short of moderator action could stop it. The rest of the whole PI fiasco is known by all of us, but an explanation of the events on that night from what I could deduce and see during and from that crisis is in order.

    The problems that that small misunderstanding caused cannot be underestimated. Had we realized exactly what was happening, I'm pretty sure that we would have supported the Aztec war, FA would have allowed the MA's against them, and the issue of stopping the chat would likely either have not come up or we would have asked that the chat be stopped but not pressed it to the degree that we did. If it weren't for that misunderstanding, this crisis would likely have never occurred.

    I also think that had you stopped the chat after declaring war and attacking the city and the settler stacks but without signing any MA's against nations that FA refused to allow you to, this wouldn't have been blown out of proportion like it was. The PI would still probably have been filed, but once an explanation was given to what really happened it would have been dropped or quickly dismissed due to No Merit.

    I would venture to say that we were both in the wrong to some degree during that fiasco. Your refusal to stop the chat and denial of FA chat instructions was legal but was a complete violation of the spirit of the game. On our side, we blew this issue way out of proportion and kept this going for too long.

    Hope this helps explain that crisis to you in better detail...it wasn't just over a war on the Aztecs, though that or more appropriately a misunderstanding of that is what triggered the rapid chain of events that led up to the PI crisis.
     
  9. FionnMcCumhall

    FionnMcCumhall Emperor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    *sigh* this is in the past we need to get over it and get on with the framework discussion. This isnt a discussion about Donsig's term as President
     
  10. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I know, but I wanted to explain this somewhere, and this thread looked like a good place to do so.
     
  11. FionnMcCumhall

    FionnMcCumhall Emperor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    not really, its past boots. Anyways back to the topic.

    I still prefer the restrictive ruleset, we still sub conciously play with it in mind so why not bring it back
     
  12. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I'm happy that this finally got said somewhere. Action #1 (war against Aztecs) was understandable. When I finally got back online during my vacation, using a friend's computer, the other two issues (treaties, not stopping the chat) were the ones which caught my attention. These two issues are the ones I want to address in the new rules.

    • Any public communication from a leader is an instruction. If it lies within that leader's responsibility, it is legal and the DP must follow it.
    • The DP must stop play if an unforseen situation comes up, as soon as it is possible to do so.
     
  13. Eklektikos

    Eklektikos Eponymous

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,635
    Location:
    London, UK
    Fine in theory, but would make life very difficult for the DP if put into practice. I tend towards the opinion that leaders should be responsible for making their instructions for a given play-session clear and easy for the DP to find at zero-hour, rather than having the latter hunt through the whole forum for their latest proclamations.
     
  14. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Perhaps we could make a provision for spot instructions, instructions given to the DP in the chat by leaders because of unforseen situations. Though leaders should try to plan ahead and think of possible situations that may arise, they can't think of everything that may occur during the chat, and some things, like demands to move troops and peace renegotiations by the AI, can't be taken to the forums. However, I think that there should be a way to hold a spot vote in the chat on whether to end it, which would be binding for the DP. This would help not only the chat-goers but also the people who are only forum-goers as it would allow them to voice their opinion on what should be done in that situation before action is taken. I would not be in favor of codifying any other spot vote, but the codification of a chat-stopping vote would help tremendously if something like the Term 3 crisis began to unfold.
     
  15. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Okay - hang on folks. We have gotten WAY off course here. That's my fault.

    The topic for this thread is soley about the guiding principle of our framework - do we go with a loose structure (DG3), a highly defined structure (DG2), or somewhere inbetween.

    The ongoing discussion about certain events of the past is about 2 months too late. Bringing up that, and other issues is fine - flogging the dead horse is a bit much. Bringing in stuff about spot votes, legal instructions, etc is strongly off topic. The Instruction topic is coming up soon, as it will take some time.

    To bring this back to topic, let me pose a question. What are the benefits and consequences, without getting into specific examples, of each system (loose, defined)? What are the assumed requirements of each system?

    -- Ravensfire
     
  16. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    In regards to your last question, Ravensfire, there seems to be two strong points brought up in this thread. One is that the game needs a restrictive structure with highly defined items and rules. The other is the need for a Leader to have the elbow room to operate within those rules according to the definitons put forth. I believe that is the key.

    As long as we know what the rules and definitions of items within those rules are, than playing the game within those guidelines will be easier and if done right, more relaxed. With the restrictive structure, we can allow that.

    With the loose structure, no one is quite clear on a lot of issues, therefore when any number of people play in a more relaxed atmosphere, they can all go in a different direction on issues and wind up on different ends of the spectum.

    So, I guess what I really mean is that we need the restrictive, well defined structure, but we also neeed to write in that elbow room for the Leaders where appropriate (if they follow the rules).
     
  17. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    If we had DG3 rules with the additions of definitions for leader responsibilities and what a legal instruction is, would you still consider that a loose ruleset? Or would that then be a strict ruleset?
     
  18. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I think that's a sub-question here zorven. "Do we take DG2 Con and modify it to match our needs, or do we take the DG3 Con and build it up to match our needs." This threads deals more with our needs.
     
  19. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    Cyc - I am just trying to get a feel for what people define as restrictive or loose. I assume that for each of us the threshold from loose to restrictive is at a different place.
     
  20. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I do not think we've gotten way of course in this discussion. The only reason we're having the flipping debate on loose versus restrictive rules is because of what happened in term three. I've been trying to tell you all that what happened back then had nothing to do with the looseness or non-looseness of the rules. It also really had nothing to do with stopping the chat or not stopping the chat. I've been on both sides of that issue as president. Those of you who go back to DG1 will recall the trouble I got into for stopping a chat against the wishes of the citizens at the chat! Boots is correct to point out that the basis of the trouble was miscommunicaiton but I will go further and say it was also founded on emotions. Write what rules you will you will not be able to eliminate the impact of emotions on this game. It seems to me that every series of PIs we've ever had were truly emotional phenomenon. My contention is that any PI or vote of no confidence will 1) always be emotional and 2) will take so long compared to the length of a term (if done fairly) and 3) not be needed because we've never had a leader truly break our rules under the various rule sets employed, that they (PIs, etc.) are useless. Since the main purpose of a restrictive rule set seems to be to list circumstances under which officials can be removed I do not see the point in deviating from the system used in DG3. I would however encourage participants in DG4 to actually make some laws, especially along the lines of how to handle pop-up windows (or how to avoid them ;) ).
     

Share This Page