Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game III: Citizens' started by Donovan Zoi, Nov 1, 2003.
ill be sure to look at those and learn of these 'horrors' you speak of.
Well, if we get rid of secret ballots (and post our votes individually) then we will never, ever have any election fraud and hence no accusations of election fraud.
It appears we will never get this figured out. Instead of looking at the big picture so that we can identify problems and work around them, people just want to argue selfishly about personal power struggles and how the can get a leg up in the next game. Each thread which is aimed at a separate and distinct goal gets bogged down by totally irrelevant issues that amount to nothing more than greedy little hands groping for more personal power. What a waste of time.
we got two months Cyc .
Donsig: As for secret ballots being eliminated that will more than likely never happen. Its easier and practical. And there could still be election fraud, ever heard of block voting? no political parties is clause that should stay forever in our ruleset as taboo. and thats on topic since its covered by our ruleset
I still like the idea of combining the strong elements from DG2 with the strong elements of DG3 coming up with a super hybrid ruleset that would become one of our greatest achievemnts game wise
I realize we still have some time to work, Fionn, but I feel we've been wasting it and don't see this group turning that around.
There is only a breath of a difference between the DG3 Constitution and the DG2 Constitution. I don't see why were trying to decide which Constitution to use ~
OK, so we might be able to lose the Senate. Radification is not really that big of a deal for me.
"All Leader positions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms" is fine by me. The key here would be to have any qualifying rules in the COS or COL.
"Elected Officials must plan and act in accordance with the will of the People" is fine with me. Clauses in the COS or COL could state that this is to be determined through polls and discuusions. These clauses could also state that if no strong indication for the will of the people is put forward by the people, then thses Leaders should design policies appropriate for their Department.
Political Parties will only hurt this Demogame. Period. Keep them out. We have enough division in the ranks already.
The key to this discussion is not which Constitution "document" to use. They're both the same (with a couple of minor changes). The point of this discussion is whether to drift along in a sea of indecision with the DG3 style Con with no supporting books, or to use the format from DG2 with The Three Books - The Constitution, The COL, and The COS. Choosing just between the Con doc of the two games should take about 10 minutes. With a pen or a word processor you could make the minor changes to make them exctly the same. I don't see why were wasting all this time on this subject.
Now 40J's Constitution is a different Document altogether. Even though some of the ideas are very similiar, all the wording is different and some of the base concepts are different. In reviewing it, I agree that there is too much detail in it, but the extra stuff could go in the COS or COL. Anyway, there is a major difference in 40J's doc. BUT NO ONE HAS BROUGHT HIS CONSTITUTION INTO THE DISCUSSION. Why? Probably because it doesn't match the DG2 and DG3 Constitution. You people want to argue over identical docs so you won't have to get into a deep conversation, I guess. Who knows. (and I'm not singling ANYONE out here. I'm speaking to you as a group.)
Just decide if you want supporting books to guide you through the game more firmly or use no supporting books and just use a short, vague Constitution. Plain and simple.
I think we are getting off track. A poll has already passed stating that we should start with the DG2 rules and work from there. So any further discussion in this thread should be proposing and discussing specific changes to the DG2 constitution. I assume DZ is leading this process, so can you post threads for the CoL and CoS?
Fine. I propose we modify the DG 2 constitution so that it matches the DG3 constitution! Is that specific enough for you? We are back to arguing about polls now because, once again, a poll was thrown up in haste when more thought would have given us a better poll.
What is the difference between modifying the DG2 ruleset and adding to the DG3 constitution? Since Add to DG3 constitution lost the poll are we now to assume we cannot replace the DG2 constitution with the DG3 constitution and then proceed to *fix* the old (broken down) CoL and CoS?
That poor poll should be interpreted to mean a constitution is not enough for DG4. We want / need some rules to support the constitution. Fine, let's just keep the better of the two constutions, which is the DG3 constitution. It is worded such that many different ideas can be incorporated into a code of laws and still fit under the constitutional umbrella.
Ill admit most of the areas of the DG3 constitution are very similar to the DG2 CON but i feel that we should add a COL and COS to support the main document.
We need to define the roles of our leaders either in the supporting documents or in the basic CON itself. I think we need to go back to appoinments for positions that are made vacant midterm ie: Term 2 this past demogame. We lost 2 domestic advisors before i found out i was the domestic leader/deputy and by the time i found out it was too late for me to do anything. Lines of communication must be defined as well. so that if things are not getting done a PM is sent asking where the person is. and if they dont respond to said PM they are promptly removed from office and PI'd.
I cant think of anything else right will add something later as i think of it
Fine. I will take responsibility for the botched poll and the exclusion of FortyJ's proposal. I won't waste forum time with my reasons unless asked, as I have no interest in jumping off into another distracting tangent.
This is my first time trying to lead a discussion on laws, and my main goal since the start has been expediency. This is why I took a now apparent shortcut in the poll and why I lobbied to rebuild a ruleset that was already in place. Now all we have to do is decide that we want to modify the DG2 Constitution by replacing it with the one from DG3. The wrong way to go about it? Starting to look that way now.
Once again, my apologies to all. I should have split this into two different polls. Please continue discussion and tomorrow I will post a poll asking which Constitution we want to modify. After that is settled, we can table talks of modifying the Constitution until we flesh out the rest of our laws.
Nope. Not to me. I like your first plan and poll better. They get us moving in the right direction quicker. I wasn't blaming you at all for not including FortyJ's Con into the poll. Hell, I think I was the only one to talk about it! My point was obviously missed. Sorry I wasn't articulate enough.
Working on the rules and then deciding to work with the COL and COS is the backward way of doing it. You were on the right track to begin with. DG@'s 3 Books will make it easier to step through the rules in an organized manner. Why would we want to reverse that?
You doing fine DZ. Stay on yer horse and finish crossing the stream.
Why don't we combine them both, plus a few changes to them both if needed?
EDIT: I still support the plan to modify the DG2 ruleset, btw, but primarily its lower two books.
@Fionn - well, if you had been paying attention back in term two you would have realized you were domestic leader.
*donsig lugs out the Three Books and burns them*
There, now they're gone. Why don't you all make a list of the things you want covered by the rules so we can start writing the rules? We can always borrow from the old CoL and CoS what we want. Bringing the old CoL and CoS over en masse and modifying may not be what we really want to do. Do we want the national parks law? Do we really want to have PIs?
Not quite, donsig. It seems you are missing the point of my post, as well as that of the modification process.
The Three Books will still remain the outline by which we define our new laws, although I am willing to concede that it would be easier to modify the Constitution from DG3. And things like the National Park law will most likely be removed. As a matter of fact, we will probably end up with an entirely different looking ruleset that happens to keep the same basic structure.
And yes, it seems clear from most of the discussions that the people still demand accountability from their leaders, although we are not quite ready to delve into specifics just yet.
i was busy with classes donsig, i am going to school to become a better web designer and make mad bling bling and yes need the PI's
I guess I am misisng the point. As I asked earlier, what is the difference between modifying the DG2 rules set and adding to the DG3 constitution? There must be a difference because we had a poll about it!
I don't agree that we want the same basic structure as was used in the DG2 ruleset. I've tried pointing out that we should decide if we really want three levels of rules or just two. I brought up the national parks issue as an illustration of some of the gobbledegook in the old CoL and CoS. There's too much junk in there - we're better off identifying the areas we want rules for and writing them. We can always look at the old CoL and CoS for ideas and even (occasionally) wording.
As for the DG4 constitution, I suggest we start with the DG3 document and go from there, get that set then work on whatever code of laws we want. In an effort to get us moving in that direction I offer the following points:
1) We need to decide if we are to allow poliitcal parties or not
2) We need to decide how many leaders we will have and what each will be responsible for
3) We need to decide the fate of the Senate and what governors will do. Also will we have mayors?
4) We need to decide the role of the judiciary and the form that PIs will take. (Will PIs be handled by the judiciary or moderators?)
5) We have to decide if we will allow appointments for vacancies or will we have elected deputies. If the latter, how will we elect them?
6) We have to decide how many offices a citizen can hold at one time.
Until we make these decisions we cannot write our constitution. Until we write our constitution we cannot write our code of laws.
ive posted an informative poll to see weather or not we want to see political parties, lets see what the citizens think
I have kept out of the discussions on DG4 until now because I felt that my voice would just add to the cacophony. However I feel compelled to point out that there are currently 22 discussion threads for DG4 on the first page alone yet virtually nothing has been decided. I am not in anyway whinging but it is essential that we get key elements of this game sorted out as soon as possible. Many many excellent and sensible ideas have been put forward yet there is no impteus to take them further. Perhaps we have achieved so little because we dont really know what we want. Nevertheless we need to start making some decisions soon.
As Donsig has shown we are putting the cart before the horse in more than a few situations. We really need to figure out how we want our government to be organised and then write our constitution to reflect that. During DG3 there was no interest in improving oue ruleset and correcting problems that we encountered. We should stop behaving like students of Plato and start making some rules. We need a plan and a timetable and we need to stick to it or we are going to end up with a camel.
Welcome back, Peri, and not a moment too soon!
Incidentally, I am in the process of creating such a thread right now, although it won't be ready until tomorrow or the next day. In it, I will try to organize our discussions in an orderly fashion so that they make sense.
a. We need to decide our Cabinet structure before we can assign duties to leaders. Otherwise we won't even know who the leaders are.
b. We need to begin dialogue on what constitutes a legal instruction so that we can fully examine leader responsibilities.
c. We need to determine if we are going to keep the same judicial structure before we begin to flesh out duties of the Judiciary.
d. We have just decided how to measure our terms, so that we can review our election cycle(in progress).
In the meantime, let's keep discussing these matters and I will decide which topics are ready for poll. Once we have a timeline for this process, I will take great pains to ensure we stick to it.
Then again, I always wanted a camel........
My suggestion is that you consider the trend in the games. DG1 had a structured rule set, but was kind of made up on the fly. In DG2 the Great Lawmaker Shaitan hoped to end all ambiguity in three fell swoops with the three books. The pendulum clearly had swung too far, and there definately was not more clarity, just more arguments (I know, I was CJ for much of that time).
It seemed to me in DG3, from a distance, that you all swung the pendulum too far the other direction.
I think DG3 constitution is good, but the core question of government structure and who can do what must be fully agreed to first, before any follow on laws can even make sense.
How are we doing on the desicins involving the constitution?
Separate names with a comma.