DG4 Informational -- Should we allow political parties?

[FionnMcCumhall]

I think its time to settle this idea once and for all. Should we allow political parties, should we experiment with this idea?
Or do we think that this is an experiemnt that can only go bad. Post why you do or do not like this idea, im quite curious to hear what the citizens think of adding political parties.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I would rather not. Things get out of hand enough without throwing this into the mix.

 

[Cyc]

Not just NO, but HELL NO!

I believe I've stated my reasoning often enough already.

 

[GenMarshall]

I dont think so. Political Parties have been problematic in the past

 

[Paalikles]

Look at the OT forum - such an addition would only create a second OT forum IMHO

(and a big deterant keeping me from wanting to join )

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

im only trying to settle a debate on this once and for all

I definately dont want parties, id have to be off my rocker to want em, but tis best to settle this issue so we can continue with our ruleset

 

[FortyJ]

Alright, I'll be the sacrificial lamb in this one.

However, before making my case for political parties, I feel obligated to clarify the distinction between the concepts of political parties and slate polling. I say this because while I would not be opposed to allowing political parties in DGIV, I am strongly against slate polling.

A political party is essentially a citizen group moonlighting under a different name. They are formed for the advancement of a certain platform (Warmongers, Culture Creators, Commerce Cravers, Conservationists, etc...) and would endorse certain candidates (potentially members of their party) during the elections. It doesn't take much to see that our perfectly legal citizen groups are already quite similar to political parties in their current form.

Slate Polling, on the other hand, implies running mates and/or a slate of candidates that are elected en masse during the elections. Rather than electing each candidate individually, we would be voting on a party ticket (Green Party nominations vs Red Party nominations, etc...). Elections would devolve into my team against your team contests and the game itself would suffer greatly.

Having hopefully clarified this distinction, I would like to see the inclusion of political parties for the following reasons:

• Political Parties would finally give some teeth to the Citizen Groups, possibly adding an entirely new level of complexity to the out-of-game portion of the demogame.
  
• Election Debates could actually have substance for a change. Since the parties would likely be split along styles of play (warring vs peaceful, industry vs conservation, etc...), the candidates could actually be faced with explaining why their respective parties' platforms would best serve our nation during the upcoming term. In other words, a real debate with game-sensitive questions.
  
• They would provide an abundant source of role-playing material.

In conclusion, I think it's an idea that is worth a try. It may turn out to be a disaster (although I doubt it can be more harmful than some of the behind-the-scenes group behavior that I've seen in previous games). Then again, it could prove to be the best thing we've ever done for the game.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Nice idea, Forty, but citizens' groups are already free to do that now. And unfortunately, those same groups have traditionally had a penchant for deccelerating from 60 to 0 after the first two weeks.

But for kicks let's say that calling them political parties helps them to maintain interest. Are we then to assume that these parties should not be able to run a full slate of candidates? What if a particularly large group just happened to have a different candidate running for each position? With these gray areas, I don't think we can have one concept without the other.

Finally, in order to play the game of Civ from beginning to end, you really need to think like an independent. I have lobbied strongly for war and for peace in the same game. Political parties will remove what I believe is the true essence of this game --- determining the course of our nation through passionate debate by individuals.

 

[TerminalMan90]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
determining the course of our nation through passionate debate by individuals.

How very American.

Being a Canadian, I will... um... Abstain!



Seriously, though, I don't have any strong feelings against political parties.

Some of you guys seem to think it will increase the complexity of the game. I think that is bad.

Some of you guys think it will increase the interest in the game. That is good. It is certainly something that people arriving in the form expect to find.

 

[FortyJ]

That is exactly what I hope would happen DZ. The parties would likely have 1 or more candidates running for various positions, and might even solicit endorsements for their candidates in the event we have more than two parties involved.

The difference is that each position is voted on independently of the others. In other words, there is no President/VP ticket. Ironically, we could very well end up with one party winning the position and another receiving the Deputy position (much like the first elections in the US, mind you). How delicious would that be?

Of course, there's also the possibility of two candidates from the same party running for the same office. Enter a third candidate from another party and you could have some interesting debates and election results.

The reason why Citizen Groups don't last for very long, and I've said this in another thread, is because they have no bite. They join up and get all excited about a cause, but quickly peter out of existence because the members realize that the group has no bearing on the outcome of the game. Now, give that group the ability to influence elections and you've created an energizing new dynamic for us all to enjoy.

Of course, if you're suggesting that the Citizen Groups of yestergame already possess this abilty to nominate candidates, participate in the debate process by contributing questions or even hosting some debates, endorse certain candidates, and such, then I'll be delighted.

EDIT: Corrected some misspellings.

 

[Cyc]

Hehe. If you read the archives of DG1, 40J, you will find that the second PI ever filed was against the Spice Traders Guild. Chieftess, the creator of the group, was mass-PMing citizens of Phoenatica to try and sway there vote to elect members of the STG. That was the first and ony attempt at a citizens group taking political actions. It lasted about 2 days..

 

[FortyJ]

Which is precisely why CitGroups are doomed to obscurity and 2 week life spans.

Chieftess was the subject of a PI because she encouraged citizens to vote a certain way. Why is this so terrible that it must be banished from the game?

Which brings me to the burning question: Can someone provide specific reasons why political parties should be banned?

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Things get out of hand enough without throwing this into the mix.

How so? How can political parties be any worse than the secretive block voting that goes on from time to time. And you know what I mean - when one group refuses to vote for someone because he or she is one of XYZ's cronies...

Originally posted by Cyc
Not just NO, but HELL NO!

Um... ok. Tough to argue that point.

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I dont think so. Political Parties have been problematic in the past

No offense CG, but if they haven't yet been permitted, how can you make this claim. In fact, I've heard from other sites that have used them that claim it is one of the best things about their demogame.

Originally posted by Paalikles
Look at the OT forum - such an addition would only create a second OT forum IMHO

I don't see how. We're certainly not opening up the floor for debating everything in the universe, and I seriously doubt that allowing political parties is going to encourage a mass migration of the regulars in the OT forum.

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
I definately dont want parties, id have to be off my rocker to want em

Why not?

<><><><>

I apologize for singling out everyone's comments in this thread, but I wanted to make a point. It seems that the "God no! I don't want political parties!" response has become knee-jerk to many of us. So much so, that I have yet to really see any convincing evidence to support their banishment.

I'll grant the potential for divisiveness, but we've already had situations in the previous games in which the citizenry has been divided between two or three "camps" over some issues. Do you honestly think that political parties would be worse than what we've witnessed in the previous games?

Not only do I not think so, I'd be willing to bet that they would be more fun for everyone. Furthermore, if it did become too divisive and/or destructive, we could always repeal the law and restore their illegal status.

 

[donsig]

Our fear of political parties is based on something that happened in the first Civ 2 demogame. I don't see them as a bogey man to be afraid of. Let's try 'em - they might spice things up a bit.

 

[Bootstoots]

I am in favor of political parties on Forty's model. Let's have political parties that function basically as citizen groups that can lobby for candidates and call themselves parties. I am also opposed to slate polling, that would take away much of the fun of the DG. Let's try these parties out, I see no good reason that we shouldn't give it a shot.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by FortyJ
That is exactly what I hope would happen DZ. The parties would likely have 1 or more candidates running for various positions, and might even solicit endorsements for their candidates in the event we have more than two parties involved.

The difference is that each position is voted on independently of the others. In other words, there is no President/VP ticket. Ironically, we could very well end up with one party winning the position and another receiving the Deputy position (much like the first elections in the US, mind you). How delicious would that be?

Almost as delicious as when two candidates with opposing views and have fought for the same position then have to deal with other as leader and deputy. Remember the Strider/donsig Science Department? Yum yum!

Originally posted by FortyJ
Of course, there's also the possibility of two candidates from the same party running for the same office. Enter a third candidate from another party and you could have some interesting debates and election results.

Any citizens group worth its salt wouldn't shoot itself in the foot by running two candidates. And I don't see why we can't have interesting debates now. To me, that is the more important issue: getting candidates more involved in head-to-head debate. You don't need a game-long commitment to a static ideal to achieve that.

Originally posted by FortyJ
The reason why Citizen Groups don't last for very long, and I've said this in another thread, is because they have no bite. They join up and get all excited about a cause, but quickly peter out of existence because the members realize that the group has no bearing on the outcome of the game. Now, give that group the ability to influence elections and you've created an energizing new dynamic for us all to enjoy.

Of course, if you're suggesting that the Citizen Groups of yestergame already possess this ability to nominate candidates, participate in the debate process by contributing questions or even hosting some debates, endorse certain candidates, and such, then I'll be delighted.

I don't see why Citizens Groups wouldn't be able to do that now, or why they haven't in the past. My guess is that the groups have never truly had much of an identity. Take the Brotherhood of Steel from DG3. It started off really well.....until practically everyone from the Citizen Registry gained membership because everyone believes in war early game.

So, I would say let's try to make Citizens Groups more interesting by having them provide a detailed mission statement and set limits on membership. Then there is nothing stopping them from doing anything on your list, as far as I can see. And since we are in the middle of making a new ruleset, we can make sure we don't take away any of those opportunities.

And speaking of rulesets, there are bigger fish to fry than this one at the moment. We still need to decide how our leadership structure is going to be set up.

 

[Octavian X]

I'm in favor of giving it a try. It's not like it'll kill us our anything.

 

[Cyc]

I'm in favor of deciding how our leadership structure is going to be set up. Seriously, avoiding the issue and calling them Citizen's Groups while we pad the ruleset for them may be the best way to go right now. Let's cast out again for those bigger fish.

 

[Paalikles]

Re my OT to DG worry:

I made the comparison not believing that OT posters would flock to the DG (well - Perfection did make an appearance in DG3...brief however)

I just wanted to point out, and though I did not specify it, I thought it was in the cards, that CFC posters have different opinions. Some of these opinions are less civil than others. Politically related opinions in particular. - then I suppose my point goes towards DZ not having to moderate "political discussions", rather than actually believing that the whole idea in principle.

I would be a strong advocate of political groups, were they implemented in a righteous way.
I suppose that makes you ask - what in someone's name does he mean by righteous?
I guess rules, rules and even more rules is necessary.

My conclusion (though this is a fast writeup and lacks logical reasoning in some extent):
Political groups = good, to the extent that they can remain civil (any mod on this site may know my opinions of what "civil" is like by now I hope...)
Political groups = bad, to the extent that the rules and regulations tie up the game. If the addition is more costly than the lack of inclusion - I say - dont include it.
--> that logic is part of a utility vs cost analysis, courtesy of Paalikles' NOK 2, 1USD being aprox 7 NOK at the moment iIrc.

thank you and good night

 

[Zarn]

I used to be against parties, but now I am for them for the fact that there will be actual elections in elections rather than appointments. Everything is still majority wins, so it won't skew anything. Also were are mature enough not to take things personally and let the parties tear us apart. Political parties are basically you citizen's groups. That's all.

Edit: also politics here would be far more simple than real world politics

Edit2: Not just YES but HELL YES!

 

[Octavian X]

This is a PM exchange between myself and Duke of Marlbrough. Just a little food for thought...

Octavian X wrote on Nov 06, 2003 04:02 PM:
Oh, those dreaded two words: [political parties.]

Anyway, I'm looking for the story of parties in the Civ2 DG and Civ3 DG.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to the current great rule discussion in our planning for the Civ3 DG4, but this is my current situation. The perennial issue of parties came up. I simply want to know what the events were that lead to the first ban on political parties, so finally the old horse that's been beat on that subject a million times can be put away.

I'm just trying to make sure we make the best decision.

Thanks,
~Octavian X

The initial reason was based on the fact that political parties basically excluded particular people. Since the political 'party' would be based on nothing more than who is friends with whom. It wouldn't be based on anything like ideals or game concerns. Once that 'party' is able to get enough friends together, they can basically stuff the ballot box and elect whomever they want.

This would lead to people not even trying to run against them and thus stop playing the game.

In one of the Civ 3 DG, we had 'guilds'. These guilds basically satrted to act as political parties by recommending their favorite people to the rest of the guild.

The main concern is that political parties would effectively exclude people from the game and thus cause the game to lose players. The first is technically against ther forum rules and the other thing we did not want to happen for the game.

Hope that helps.


DoM