DG4 Govt: Permissive vs Restrictive framework

My answer to that is you still have a loose instruction set.

You are defining what needs to be done, not how. Look through DG2, there is a lot of "how" in that ruleset. DG3 has minimal "how", and minimal "what".

Let my try an example to explain this, and I'll use a current discussion - stopping a game play session.

Under a loose ruleset, we say that the DP must fulfill all defined responsibilities, primarily to follow all legal instructions. There is nothing about stopping a game play session in the rules. Official A, having reviewed the situation and had a discussion, has posted an instruction that should event 'B' occur, the session should be stopped. The ruleset has defined the "what" - follow legal instructions. The official created the "how" - stop the session if B occurs.

Under a strict ruleset, we would have rules defining when a session will stop. Official A doesn't have to review the situation, or have a discussion. When event 'B' occurs, the ruleset demands the session will stop. The ruleset has defined the "how" - stop the session if B occurs.

Although highly simplified, and taken to an extreme, this is my view of the differences between a loose and a strict ruleset.

-- Ravensfire

 

Heheh. I believe if you think a little harder, donsig, you will find that your last post is in error. Rules have been broken and PI's have helped the Demogame shape new rules as well as modify existing ones.

First, the purpose of a PI is not really to punish an individual. It is to identify the areas in the DG that are problem areas. Did a person break the rules? Why? Could ity have been done differently? Possibly, let's discuss it. Do these discussions help direct our Nations in a better course towadrs the future? Yes, I believe so. We just need to rise up above the bickering and name-calling that comes with the whining. A "No Merit call by the Judiciary is just a powerful as a discussion on a matter. And a discussion on a Judicial decision is also strong feature (wrong word) within our society. If we can look at PI's the way they were meant to be (to correct dificiencies in the game) in a mature manner, then they can help us work out the problems such as writing a new Constitution.

Secondly, because of the PI system and the examination of the rules during the time of the PI you've mentioned above, it was noted and strongly supported by the masses that if you had not taken a spot citizen vote on whether to stop the chat in question, then you as President would have been well within your rights to stop the chat. But you took that vote, and the citizens chose not to stop the chat, but to make the Trade deal. THAT'S when you stopped the chat. All hell had broken loose at that t/c and it was truly time to stop that chat, but you put off the vote until the anarchaic mob had reversed its mind and chose not to stop it. It was madness and you actually did the "appropriate" thing in stopping the chat, had you not taken that spot vote, which bound your hands to obey the will of the people.

Or did you forget that?

 

I've not forgotten how PI#6 came about, Cyc. But if I hadn't previously exercised the veto (which was within the rules) then I doubt PI#6 would have happened. The veto had aroused emotions even before that chat.

So once again, we have come full circle, back to the *will of the people*. I never thought, during that DG1 chat or afterwards, that those at the chat represented the *will of the people*.

Yes, Cyc, PIs should work as you outlined but they inevitably end up as confrontational and emotional things. We're better off without them.

@ravensfire: I do not think we can come up with a comprehensive list of *chat stoppers* that would not slow the game to a snail's pace.

 

See, donsig, you're avoiding the point of my post. According to the restrictive Constitution, you were given elbow room to operate within the confines of it. But that same Con also stated that if a President/DP put forth a Spot Vote to the citizens in a t/c, then the results of the Spot Vote represented the will of the people, "at that time". This substantiates the point I made earlier.

If you look at it objectively, then you would see that the content in the Constitution is what allows the game to flow and develop as it evolves around the will of the people. The wet dish rag Constitution of DG3 does not allow for that. It allows for rough-shod cowboy policies that can go unchecked, and therefore disruptive to the game itself.

Personally, I like the idea of Spot Votes being "advice" to the President/DP. But the definition of those Spot Votes, which allow the DP to operate freely in a t/c needs to be placed in a restrictive Constitution.

 

I think you are correct about that. However, it's not relevant at this point. As it relates to my example, maybe. But my example was just that - an example. Currently, we have an empty void where the DG4 ruleset goes - we need to start defining it.

Right now, this topic is about one, and only one decision - a loose or strict ruleset. Both decision have good and bad implications. Guess what - there is no single system that will make everyone happy. Not gonna happen.

At this point, the conversation has gotten way, way off target. I'm going to take this as a sign that the conversation is finished, and people are bored with it. Poll will be posted in a few hours.

-- Ravensfire

 

@ravensfire: Poll away if you feel you must. I for one do not see the conversation as way-off topic. How do you expect us to talk about a permissive ruleset versus a restrictive one if we do not talk about the specifics of each? I realize your example was just an example. What you do not seem to realize is that what ever you decide to use as an example will be subject to the same kind of objections. Restrictive rules will slow the play of the game and take the fun out of it.

@Cyc: I do not mean to miss your point for it is exactly what we need to talk about. With restrictive rules we pay a price. When we explicitly write down how we define *the will of the people* or what a *chat stopper* is we are stuck with what is written whether it is good or not. You have correctly pointed out many times here that we've made many knee-jerk rules that have back fired on us. We've been doing that ever since Grey Fox was president. (Remember the 24 hour advance notice of the chat?) What do we do when we make a bad rule? The choices are black and white - live by the poor rule (until it can be changed) or break it now. The more restrictive and larger our rule set is the more likely we are to have badly written rules that will detract from the game's enjoyability.

It is not the looseness of the DG3 constitution that *allows for rough-shod cowboy policies that can go unchecked*. It is the lack of vigilence (read laziness) of the citizens. Rather than post in the forums they'd rather show up at the chat. Rather than pass a law specifying how pop-up windows should be handled they'd rather institute a PI.

I will vote for a loose rule set if it is polled.

 

quoting donsig:
Poll away if you feel you must. I for one do not see the conversation as way-off topic. How do you expect us to talk about a permissive ruleset versus a restrictive one if we do not talk about the specifics of each?

Ditto, Ravensfire. I feel these posts are dead on. We are discussing exactly what you requested of this thread. The pros and cons of both types of structures.

@donsig - I believe you are strengthen ing my point.

quoting donsig:
It is the lack of vigilence (read laziness) of the citizens. Rather than post in the forums they'd rather show up at the chat. Rather than pass a law specifying how pop-up windows should be handled they'd rather institute a PI.

If this point of view is valid, and we seemed to have prove it this DG3, then of course we need the mnore restrictive guidelines to hold the game on course. It does need rails to keep on track when there is a situation like this. The loose structure will not help with your example.

 

And I will probably vote for a resticted ruleset if it is polled. Here's my reasoning:

First of all, strictly defining the role of leaders will help to sift out the so-called "lazy" citizens you speak of, at least in regard to elected positions. These should not be so strict that it eliminates the "fun factor." EDIT: hehe, Cyc, I wrote this before I even saw your post....

Secondly, we have been through this several times, so we should be able to anticipate where problems may arise. DG2 had most of its issues with conflicting rules within the Code of Laws. We can solve this problem by removing as much ambiguity from the ruleset as possible.

Thirdly, I would like to take this process through to January 1st if we have to do so. We should aim for completion of the bulk of the ruleset for December 1st, after which we have an entire month to remove the bugs. Will we get them all? Probably not, but we have a better chance if we include this buffer.

And we will certainly not finish if we sit too long on one topic. I believe that on some level, everyone here has an idea what kind of ruleset they want and a good idea of what works and what doesn't. So let's poll this to see if we need to put alot of work or a little work into this.

---

Ravensfire, is there any chance of including your entire outline of discussions in the Directory now? This will satisfy two things:

1. It will show everyone what you plan on discussing, so everyone knows the topic flow. It will give people time to prepare their debate material.

2. We will see exactly what we need to accomplish, so we can allow the proper time to do so.

 

It seems the same modification to our current ruleset would cause 2 different people to see the result differently. How can we define a loose or strict ruleset when 2 people can look at the same thing and see something different. Or, am I just nuts.....

 

Umm, forgive me for being totally ignorant, but what is the "Democracy Game"? (I just joined CFC)

 

That's a keen insight, zorven. I can only guess that RF's interpretation was for a leader's implied duties(most of which carried over from DG2), while mine would go into rules regarding thread instruction deadlines, discussion/polling protocol, and leader absence stipulations. I guess I should have made myself more clear, but I am really not at liberty to discuss those details just yet.

 

Welcome 5queens. There is a new player guide here . If that doesn't answer all your questions, you can send me a PM (private message) and I will do my best to answer you.

 

You are not nuts zorven. But multiply this distinction a few fold and you will begin to see what will happen under a restrictive rule set in DG4.

Donovan Zoi, on the other hand, I think might be though if you think anyone wants to spend three months making up rules to play the demogame! Not only will you not be able to get more than one or two people to even maintaininterest that long (without playing) you will still end up with something that will not work in practice as it is intended! I do not even see how we are close to writing a ruleset (restrictive or otherwise) when we have not even nailed down such fundamental things as forum versus chat based, how we define *the will of the people* or even how power is to be distributed among our elected leaders!

This discussion thread is a prime example of an on going problem with the demogame. Someone opened a thread to discuss a broad topic (in this case what direction our rules should take). It's boiled down to *permissive* versus *restrictive*. There's alot of rhetoric about run-away-trains (as if we were playing Railroad Tycoon rather than Civ III ) and this rhetoric leads to a call from the citizens for *restrictive* rules because we fell we have to *restrain* our designater player. So we blindly forge ahead in the faith that we can boldly go where no man has gone before and write a comprehensive rule set that will cover all the bases, leave no loopholes and still let us have a fun demogame with none of the problems of the past demogames.

It ain't gonna happen.

If you are all so afraid of run away trains why don't we just concentrate on writing rules to counter that threat? Perhaps if you all tried actually writing some rules you might begin to see the problems that are involved.

 

Actually, anyone that has dealt with gathering information from a group of people to create a statement of some type has seen exactly the problems that occur.

donsig, one must start somewhere. I chose to start at this question. DZ suggested that I list the future topics I can see we need to talk about - that's in process.

There are lots of ways to put something together. I prefer a process that doesn't work on verbage and phrasing at the start, but gets ideas and concepts worked out. The point that zorven made has been by far the most interesting one so far, and brings forth the question of what is meant by "permissive", "restrictive", "loose" and "strict".

You have brought up good problems, but they don't matter right now. Forum vs chat - who cares? Right now, I don't. I'm referring to things as "game play sessions" for now - it doesn't tie us down to any specific approach. Legal instructions - no, not yet. Who going to give them?

People want to jump right into the details, that does not help fix some of the problems. We have the time to actually do this right. So start at the top, work on the general concepts, then get focused on the details.

For now, the question of loose vs strict still needs to be answered.

Perhaps, we need to define the terms first. I'll suggest that DG3 is an example of a loose framework - It states in broad terms what each person, citizen or official, should do. It doesn't state how things should be done.

DG2 is an example of a strict framework. It states pretty directly how to do things - polling, instructions, etc.

donsig and zorven are right though - this is a question that must be answered before any poll on this subject can be considered. How can one ask a question when the options are not defined?

Or is this a question that we should not ask, but answer by our decisions on other matters?

-- Ravensfire

 

Per DZ's suggestion, I've put up a list of probable discussion topics here[/url.

-- Ravensfire

 

Yes, yes, yes. We must start somewhere. Silly me, I thought that since we're about to embark on demogame number four we might actually be able to continue the process started in the previous three demogames rather than beginning fromscratch.

I will try one more time. The stated purpose of this thread is to discuss whether we want a *permissive* or a *restrictive* rule set for DG4. *Permissive* is being equated with loose or vague rules, more specifically with our current constitution. *Restrictive* is being equatted with a comprehensive set of rules that will detail who can do what, when they can do it, how they can do it as well as what isn't allowed. The rules from DG2 are held up as an example though we all seem to realize there are problems with those rules.

My feeling is that if we decide on *permissive* rules then our current constitution lives but if we decide on *restrictive* rules then it dies. If this feeling is correct then it is a shame indeed, for our constitution is a great document. It embodies ideals that I think we all agree on. I see no reason to leave the constitution behind or even modify it. If you all want to make up a DG2 style code of laws then go ahead, but please leave the constitution in place and try to keep your new laws within its spirit.

 

I am still not against this idea. I like Ravensfire's approach, but still would not object to modifying the DG2 Three Books. The only flaw with that ruleset is that it needs a major tune-up. But the structure is in place.

See my last comment, and add to that that issues only arose when there were conflicting rules. We have several capable people here that can ensure that this doesn't repeat.

I promised I wouldn't go there, but our constitution died the moment you decided it was more important to play ten turns than to listen to the public. In your grand stance against the "chatmongers", you managed to alienate the very people you claimed to champion --- the forumgoers. I have always considered myself the latter, and didn't feel like a great battle was won in my favor that day.

But I don't want to dwell on that, as my reasons for a restrictive ruleset go far beyond that one incident. It goes to setting new standards for turnchat instructions, polls, setting a basis for city naming guidelines, and a host of other things.

Always the good sport, I will look over our DG3 constitution and see if it can be supported by a more restrictive ruleset. If not, I think it's time we shed a tear and let it go.

 

Actually, Ravensfire.....

donsig has a good point about starting from scratch, as we are pretty much re-inventing the wheel here.

That said, should we start a discussion(or poll) on whether we should either start fresh, or modify an existing document? I certainly don't want to undermine your approach, but I can see the time benefits of doing the latter.

Just a thought.........

 

Either approach will work, and is fine with me. I think we have 5 different options out there: DG2, DG3, 40J's proposal, Fier's proposal and my proposal. I'm more than willing to table this approach if we decide to modify an existing document. The question would then become, which document?

donsig or DZ - would you mind running the discussion on modifying an existing proposal vs starting from scratch?

-- Ravensfire

 

I can start it later today if donsig doesn't.

My first choice would be to modify DG2, as there are many here that are familiar with that ruleset. We should still follow your schedule, and make changes to the Three Books as the happen. I have no problem including all five rulesets in the discussion, although in the end I think the favored options will be:

1. Your proposal
2. Modify DG2
3. Add to DG3
4. Abstain(of course)