DG5 Constitution: General Discussion

[GenMarshall]

I like that idea.

I personaly hate the idea of desolving/removing deputies

 

[Rik Meleet]

I feel that if we need an "election office" then that oversight should actually be provided by the Mods, so that we can avoid having legal tussles over the question of the judiciary being able to rule on the validity of their own election.

Overseeing is what the mods (are supposed to) do anyway, so why not use it in-game in this way. I'm only a newbie mod and don't know yet the heavyness and possibilities of the task, but I think this is wise.

 

[Sarevok]

Overseeing is what the mods (are supposed to) do anyway, so why not use it in-game in this way. I'm only a newbie mod and don't know yet the heavyness and possibilities of the task, but I think this is wise.

Thaat might make the mods a power in thhis game, kind of an elite among the elite(veterans) of this game. That might not bode well...

 

[Epimethius]

Well....why not the Judicial, with they're election overseen by the mods? That way, we can get rid of them if they're causing trouble. Unfortunately, it would probably cause lots of bickering and partisanship, but thats always interesting.

 

[Bootstoots]

Well....why not the Judicial, with they're election overseen by the mods? That way, we can get rid of them if they're causing trouble. Unfortunately, it would probably cause lots of bickering and partisanship, but thats always interesting.

I'm sure you'd get tired of it pretty quickly.

 

[donsig]

Re: Election Office. In the early demogames the moderators posted the nomination and election threads and we had no problems.

Re: Deputies. Eliminating them is fine so long as you all don't get hung up and/or freak out when a leader goes AWOL and no instructions are posted. I am against removing people from office (other than by not re-electing them). I'm also against stopping play because someone didn't post an instruction. If you're all willing to let the DP (and the I mean the DP and not those at the chat) make decisions in the absence of posted instructions then by all means dispense with deputies. You will need a mechanism for replacing those who resign.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Thaat might make the mods a power in thhis game, kind of an elite among the elite(veterans) of this game. That might not bode well...

What are you afraid of ? That the mods change elections the way they want to ?
How I see the mods overseeing the election office is that on the correct date and time (as described in the CoL) the nominations threads are posted, a nomination tracker is created and elections start. I fail to see how this is making it a power.

 

[DaveShack]

In hindsight we should have frozen term 1 and restarted in February after the holes in the rules were taken care of.

Overseeing the election should be is it on time, with the correct procedures followed, and the winners are who the rules say they should be. If someone claims tampering then check the info visible to mods only. This does not represent a problem for me, seems like the best way to be sure we're on track if any questions come up.

 

[Chieftess]

I disagree with that. It shouldn't take 2 months to create rules. That is why 25% of the people who were here in December left. The demogame should really be much more simple that we make it out to be.

- X number of advisors, with nominations, and elections every month.
- Largest vote winner wins.
- Post advisor threads and start discussions, and polls.
- Post instructions in the turnchat thread, and have regular turnchats.

The problem DG4 had was trying to micromanage the above 4 basic steps. This is why the demogame should have a "backbone ruleset" of generic rules, which would be about 1/3 the total ruleset, and with a line stating that, if any legal disputes aren't solved in say, 3 weeks, a 3rd party (usually a mod) can step in. One thing I'm saying right now as a mod - Do *NOT* micromanage the turnchat! Reason? The game moves slowly when you do. Users lose interest quickly. Participation drops, and you wonder why no one discusses anything.

 

[Sarevok]

I personaly hate the idea of desolving/removing deputies

they are virtually useless anyway, why have them? only when they are completely competent and good are they useful, and those people are almost always in a minister position instead due to their skill.

 

[GenMarshall]

they are virtually useless anyway, why have them? only when they are completely competent and good are they useful, and those people are almost always in a minister position instead due to their skill.

Deputies are not useless. They have been useful in the past demogames. The reason you see that they are useless is because of the "Dont change the TC Instruction" rule. I would personaly would like to see the "Dont change the TC Instruction" rule to have the deputies to have a pourpouse in the TC when something unexpected happens.
I personaly would wish to see that the Deputies should stay around since they would hand out instructions that they fit if something unexpected happens when a Leader is not present in the TC.

 

[Rik Meleet]

There are 2 discussions on this deputy-issue and the "get rid of deputies" needs to be held after the discussion "Do we want instructions during the TC?"

 

[Noldodan]

I, for one, think that instructions during a turnchat add a great deal of flexibility to the turnchats. Besides, it's less beuracracy because the leaders won't have to plan EVERYTHING beforehand.

 

[donsig]

I, for one, think that instructions during a turnchat add a great deal of flexibility to the turnchats. Besides, it's less beuracracy because the leaders won't have to plan EVERYTHING beforehand.

Someday you will all realize two things:

1) Leaders are not supposed to be planning ANYTHING, we all are suppsed to be planning EVERYTHING. The leaders are simply those we have chosen (via our elections) to document our collective decisions in the game play instruction thread.

2) It is not a big hairy deal if we don't play a perfect Civ III game. So what if the slider settings aren't maximized. Who really cares if a city isn't maximizing it's potential or isn't building the most desirable thing?

We have elected too many people in these games who think their job is to run our country for us, rather than to run our country the way we ask it to be run. It is that mentality that is driving participation down and nothing else. Those with this mentality do not even need to be elected if we allow instructions to be given during the game play sessions. All they have to do is show up at the chat and *micromanage* as CT calls it. They can point out *flaws* in the posted instructions and get them changed by sweet talk or coercion. Let's stick to making decisions in the forums, where we can all contribute, and leave decisin making out of the chats.

 

[Chieftess]

BTW, you can now have public polls in the forum. So, that means that all election polls must be public if we choose to do that. There was discussion on it, and apparently, it's a vbulletin feature.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

BTW, you can now have public polls in the forum. So, that means that all election polls must be public if we choose to do that. There was discussion on it, and apparently, it's a vbulletin feature.

I am against public election polls, and will fight it at every turn. It will cause nothing but trouble. If there is some controversy with an election result, then the mods can get TF to check it out(or maybe they can check it themselves now.....?).

Picture this: a candidate is losing in the polls, so he clicks on the results in progress and then has solid info of who has already been to the polling booth. The candidate can then PM anyone who hasn't yet voted to support his cause. I really don't want this happening, do you?

Secondly, this idea flies in the face of a citizens right to vote privately. It is one thing to publicly announce your choice in the election thread(as many do); it is quite another to have your vote unveiled to all against your wishes.

At this point, the citizenry is almost evenly divided on this matter, but mark my words: adopting public election polls will be a big mistake. Let's put alot of thought into it before we go down that path.

On the plus side, I do like the idea of public polls for votes on policy(war votes, build queues etc) because it establishes a public voting record for all prospective candidates.

What say you, Fanatica?

 

[Immortal]

I am against public election polls, and will fight it at every turn. It will cause nothing but trouble.

I will be with you during that fight

 

[Rik Meleet]

Me too; No public elections.

 

[Black_Hole]

prolly not public elections, but I think other polls should have public elections

 

[Epimethius]

I support the secret ballot.

And the changes in turnchats.