DG4 Govt: Permissive vs Restrictive framework

[zorven]

Originally posted by zorven
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.

I knew you guys would come around (sorry, couldn't resist)

If we go this route, I think we would still benefit by having ravensfire (assuming he wants the job) lead a structured discussion of each element of the documents like he has been doing. If we have no structure to this process and multiple start opening debates and polls from various sections it will be more difficult to get where we are going.

 

[donsig]

I'm sorry, I don't have time to properly start a discussion thread. If we're to start talking about a number of different proposals the discussion thread needs to have them all laid out in the the first few posts so everyone can see them.

One thing I would like to point out is that is that in the DG2 rule set versus the DG3 ruleset, the former has a constitution that evolved into the latter. If the DG2 ruleset is adopted I would hope the DG2 constitution would be replaced by the DG3 constitution. I'm afraid I know not what the DG4 framework is nor do I know what FortyJ's exact proposal is so I can't comment on them now.

I do think it would be helpful if we decided what form the rules will take. I don't mean permissive versus restrictive but will we have different levels (general principles that are difficult to change along with more specific rules that are easier to change) in different documents or are we going to lump everything together into one document (and if so will it be all one consistancy or will it be lumpy)?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
quoting donsig:
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.

I am not in favor of a permissive ruleset per se. But if someone posts a poll that simply asks do we want a loose structure versus a strict structure then I will vote for loose. However, I still think the way we set up DG3 is the best. Start loose and make rules as we see the need. For DG4 we could simply carry over the DG3 constitution and make a few laws to deal with the specifi complaints people have about DG3. Rather than try that some are insisting on making a comprehensive ruleset. They do not want to understand that this was already tried in DG2 and it failed!

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

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.

Well, you've gone there so let's talk about the issue. I'm glad you consider yourself a forum goer DZ, but I have news for you. We lost most of the forum goers back in DG1. If you want wider participation in the demogames then we have to bring decision making back to the forums and reduce the influence of the chat. I am truly sorry that you feel let down by my approach in term three. I must admit it did not had the effect I desired. I did what I did in the interest of the demogame, just as you did by cancelling the last play session of your term. I do hope you can see though that your method was not provoking decision making any more than mine did.

It is just too bad that our citizens vented their energy in term three trying to remove me from office instead of making laws or rules so they could have things run the way they wanted. They always had the power, they just never chose to use it.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Since things have died down here, I have posted a new discussion thread to see how we want to go about building our new ruleset. Here it is:

DG4 Ruleset: Modify Or From Scratch?