DG6: Alternative Government Structure

[GenMarshall]

Personaly, I dont wish for the Domestic and the Military Departments to be further divided. It would just spawn unnecissary Beurocracy.

 

[Nobody]

i dont have a oppion on the topic, but i do on civgenerals new avartar. Its great

 

[Ashburnham]

Personaly, I dont wish for the Domestic and the Military Departments to be further divided. It would just spawn unnecissary Beurocracy.

But surely you would agree that the Domestic and Military Ministries were far and away the two largest officies in DG5. Wouldn't it make sense to divide the Ministries equally, so that one office doesn't dominate over others? That's what this proposal does.

 

[DaveShack]

But surely you would agree that the Domestic and Military Ministries were far and away the two largest officies in DG5. Wouldn't it make sense to divide the Ministries equally, so that one office doesn't dominate over others? That's what this proposal does.

There is actually some benefit to having offices with different participation levels needed, that way candidates can choose an office which more closely matches the available time. Remember, RL is the number one reason people cite for lowered participation.

 

[classical_hero]

I have to agree with Provolution on the structure of the Government. One thing that needs to be done is the ability for each department to change as the game changes. With the Military we should split the Military up once we get our first ship so that the person is charge of the navy and the same for the Commander of the Air Force. Some departments will need to split once they get to involved. We need a fluid Government structure rather than the rigid structure that we have had so far.

 

[GenMarshall]

But surely you would agree that the Domestic and Military Ministries were far and away the two largest officies in DG5. Wouldn't it make sense to divide the Ministries equally, so that one office doesn't dominate over others? That's what this proposal does.

Not realy, because it would just create more beurocracy. I forsee that this would create problems with what I call the "traditionalists" in claming that this is a bad idea and try to push forward a traditional based governernmet. If this is passed, the traditionalist would make an attempt to push forward an admendment to fuse the offices of the domestic and their subdore offices and the Military and their subdore offices back together. Also the traditionalists would also push forward an admendment to split the combined FAs and Trade departments bact to what they are.

I dont call myself a traditionalist. But I do support the new system. But I would have to not support it on the grounds that it would cause a bushfire arguments in the DG6 future. I also dont support it on the grounds from what I have seen in Demogame 4, when they combined certan offices and eliminated culture. IIRC, there was a heated debate about it.

 

[WeaponX]

I like this new structure but more importanly I want Trade and Foreign to be combined in Foriegn Affairs. They always seeme to be crossing horns and it will make things easier.

 

[Ashburnham]

Not realy, because it would just create more beurocracy. I forsee that this would create problems with what I call the "traditionalists" in claming that this is a bad idea and try to push forward a traditional based governernmet. If this is passed, the traditionalist would make an attempt to push forward an admendment to fuse the offices of the domestic and their subdore offices and the Military and their subdore offices back together. Also the traditionalists would also push forward an admendment to split the combined FAs and Trade departments bact to what they are.

I dont call myself a traditionalist. But I do support the new system. But I would have to not support it on the grounds that it would cause a bushfire arguments in the DG6 future. I also dont support it on the grounds from what I have seen in Demogame 4, when they combined certan offices and eliminated culture. IIRC, there was a heated debate about it.

So, you're against this proposal because it would spark debate on the forums? Isn't that what we want? People can debate all they want, that's what this thread is for. I certainly don't see debate as a negative; it's an inherent part of running a government.

Also, I'm confused as to why this new government would cause more bureaucracy. What exactly do you mean? Provo's proposal would give us the same number of offices we had in DG5; there's no increase in the size of the government, thus there's no increase in bureaucracy.

As for the idea of traditionalists trying to change the government, they're welcome to. That's what the ammendment process is for. If they can persuade the majority of the citizens that we need to change around the Ministries, why shouldn't we? However, the chances of that happening are extremely small, considering all the work and consideration that has already gone into this proposal.

 

[Black_Hole]

So, you're against this proposal because it would spark debate on the forums? Isn't that what we want? People can debate all they want, that's what this thread is for. I certainly don't see debate as a negative; it's an inherent part of running a government.

Also, I'm confused as to why this new government would cause more bureaucracy. What exactly do you mean? Provo's proposal would give us the same number of offices we had in DG5; there's no increase in the size of the government, thus there's no increase in bureaucracy.

As for the idea of traditionalists trying to change the government, they're welcome to. That's what the ammendment process is for. If they can persuade the majority of the citizens that we need to change around the Ministries, why shouldn't we? However, the chances of that happening are extremely small, considering all the work and consideration that has already gone into this proposal.

i agree with ashburnham,
i think it would be much easier for the traditionalists to do stuff in a traditional government rather than alternate government

 

[Strider]

So, you're against this proposal because it would spark debate on the forums? Isn't that what we want? People can debate all they want, that's what this thread is for. I certainly don't see debate as a negative; it's an inherent part of running a government.

Debate isn't exactly what you would call it. It will likely turn into a huge fight as people clash and further seperate the game. Might end up for acouple of bannings also.

Also, I'm confused as to why this new government would cause more bureaucracy. What exactly do you mean? Provo's proposal would give us the same number of offices we had in DG5; there's no increase in the size of the government, thus there's no increase in bureaucracy.

It causes less beureaucracy in the places that didn't need less, and more in the places that do actually need less. Seems to me that we are driving this game into the ground.

As for the idea of traditionalists trying to change the government, they're welcome to. That's what the ammendment process is for. If they can persuade the majority of the citizens that we need to change around the Ministries, why shouldn't we? However, the chances of that happening are extremely small, considering all the work and consideration that has already gone into this proposal.

It seems though that you mis-interpreted him, imagine having the constitution changed half-way through to one more like the the past demogame constitutions. Sounds fun right? I can sure as hell tell you right now, if this passes, most of my time is going to be trying to do just that. Hey, the amendment process is there for a reason, right?

I like this new structure but more importanly I want Trade and Foreign to be combined in Foriegn Affairs. They always seeme to be crossing horns and it will make things easier.

We tried merging departments together in DG4, and guess what? We divided them back up inside of DG5! No need to repeat the same mistakes every other game.

I have to agree with Provolution on the structure of the Government. One thing that needs to be done is the ability for each department to change as the game changes. With the Military we should split the Military up once we get our first ship so that the person is charge of the navy and the same for the Commander of the Air Force. Some departments will need to split once they get to involved. We need a fluid Government structure rather than the rigid structure that we have had so far.

Okay, this is starting to get screwed up beyond reason. We have some people saying to merge departments because they "butt heads" and some saying we need to split them up, and they all seem to be agreeing with eachother. So, were going to merge some departments for they won't butt heads, but we will miss all of the fun, so were going to seperate others for then they can butt heads? Sounds fun to me, but let's not try it with military. I would hate for abunch of our units to be stuck during a war because the navy official and land official is butting heads.

But surely you would agree that the Domestic and Military Ministries were far and away the two largest officies in DG5. Wouldn't it make sense to divide the Ministries equally, so that one office doesn't dominate over others? That's what this proposal does.

No it doesn't make sense, and I fail to see how they were dominating. If we divid them all equally then the end result would be more fights then you can count.

-------------

We have yet to even manage to get our current layout to work properly, and were just going to throw all of that out and try something new out? Something else that will have a hundred differant problems? I don't know about you guys, but I would prefer not to spend this entire demogame fighting over the constitution, because something didn't work out as planned.

I've been inside of this game sense day 1, that was about 2 and a half years ago for the newer players. 2 years of work figuring out what does and does not work, and your just going to throw it all out, for we can just repeat the entire process? What you guys want a shot a screwing the game over also?

 

[Gres]

I agree with Strider and CivGeneral.
Where as this plan sounds very interesting and even seems to fix some problems, it is a very drastic change. No person can say that they know this proposal will work as many of you believe it will. There are already ten different ways of conducting this plan and only one way can be chosen. So when something goes unexpectedly I can see a nasty fight erupting because one person says that it should have been done another way.
On the other hand, there is a system that has been used for, as Strider says, two and a half years. Why throw something out that hundreds have worked to perfect for so many years? It does not make a whole lot of sense. I find it very disconcerting that you all would risk wasting what will be a new and exciting DG experience (C3C, Emperor) for a laborous and unstable reform.
Lets all keep in mind we are here to have fun, our ultimate goal is the same. Is C3C and emporer not good enough?

 

[Nobody]

Hi all,
Ok so heres my idea for the new government. You guys would have to work out all the small points and stuff as you do but the basic idea would be that the government changes to meet the in game government. We would always have the ministers, governors and judges but there powers and how they are appointed would change with governments, no matter what they would all still interpret and implement the will of the people. The judges would stay the way they are now during the whole game to keep stability.

Different governments:

Despotism, during this time the ministers and governors would not be elected, but would fight for there position. Instead of nominations people would put there own name forward. Then the competitors would fight (by civ or if this is to long and hard by chess, checkers or something else) and the winners would get the position. At the start of each term people would challenge.

Monarchy, Anyone wanting to be king (president) would put there name forward and then randomly chosen (you could ask thunder fall to do this as divine choice). The monarch would appoint the rest except governors who would be elected and be the parliament who controls the money (budgets etc) the monarchy would be handed to a successor every term.

Republic, we would only elected governors who then would elect the positions. The governors would act as the senate. No polls like in the current game all that would be the Senates decision.

Democracy: same as we are now

Communism: Every citizen would chose one soviet (military, trade, culture, science and FA) they would then chose a leader who would run there department. President would be chosen by general elections.

Fascism, we would elect the officials as normal except the military leader would be DP and after the first election we would have no more.

Feudalism, ummm…. I’m not sure.

Anarchy, the person who proposed the revolution would be DP, the ministers would be the same as during the last elections except they would act by decree screw the will of the people.

Do you guys like my ideas.

 

[Black_Hole]

Hi all,
Ok so heres my idea for the new government. You guys would have to work out all the small points and stuff as you do but the basic idea would be that the government changes to meet the in game government. We would always have the ministers, governors and judges but there powers and how they are appointed would change with governments, no matter what they would all still interpret and implement the will of the people. The judges would stay the way they are now during the whole game to keep stability.

Different governments:

Despotism, during this time the ministers and governors would not be elected, but would fight for there position. Instead of nominations people would put there own name forward. Then the competitors would fight (by civ or if this is to long and hard by chess, checkers or something else) and the winners would get the position. At the start of each term people would challenge.

Monarchy, Anyone wanting to be king (president) would put there name forward and then randomly chosen (you could ask thunder fall to do this as divine choice). The monarch would appoint the rest except governors who would be elected and be the parliament who controls the money (budgets etc) the monarchy would be handed to a successor every term.

Republic, we would only elected governors who then would elect the positions. The governors would act as the senate. No polls like in the current game all that would be the Senates decision.

Democracy: same as we are now

Communism: Every citizen would chose one soviet (military, trade, culture, science and FA) they would then chose a leader who would run there department. President would be chosen by general elections.

Fascism, we would elect the officials as normal except the military leader would be DP and after the first election we would have no more.

Feudalism, ummm…. I’m not sure.

Anarchy, the person who proposed the revolution would be DP, the ministers would be the same as during the last elections except they would act by decree screw the will of the people.

Do you guys like my ideas.

well it kinda is a 'democracy' game, and then in many governements its just a 1 person game(like monarchy)

 

[Ashburnham]

We have yet to even manage to get our current layout to work properly, and were just going to throw all of that out and try something new out? Something else that will have a hundred differant problems? I don't know about you guys, but I would prefer not to spend this entire demogame fighting over the constitution, because something didn't work out as planned.

I've been inside of this game sense day 1, that was about 2 and a half years ago for the newer players. 2 years of work figuring out what does and does not work, and your just going to throw it all out, for we can just repeat the entire process? What you guys want a shot a screwing the game over also?

That's basically the crux of the argument against instituting these changes. And it's not a bad one. However, DaveShack (someone whom I would consider a veteran) has obviously worked hard at this proposal, it deserves to be heard and thought over and discussed. Having a knee-jerk reaction to something new just because it's different doesn't help anything, and it certainly doesn't advance discussion. There's no set date for when the next DG has to begin (thank god), so we're free to discuss this as much as we want. The more we discuss, the better the plan becomes.






p.s.- "bureaucracy" is a hard word to spell

 

[Eklektikos]

The idea that we should stick with the old system simply because it's what we've always had does not hold much water from my point of view. I still feel that the first Civ3 demogame was for me the most enjoyable at least in part due to the fact that we were still exploring what could be done with our chosen form of government and a degree of creativity was actively encouraged in that regard. Close to three years of essentially the same structure has slowly but surely snuffed that aspect of the game out and despite regular overhauls of the constitution there have been no changes sufficient to take the game back from the rather humdrum affair it has become and make it fresh and exciting again.
At present I don't consider the proposals in this thread ready for use, but think that we should - as Ashburnham says - discuss them until we either produce a clear and fully viable alternative to the present system or discover reasons for rejecting the suggested changes that go beyond those of tradition or distaste for constitutional wrangling.

 

[classical_hero]

Okay, this is starting to get screwed up beyond reason. We have some people saying to merge departments because they "butt heads" and some saying we need to split them up, and they all seem to be agreeing with eachother. So, were going to merge some departments for they won't butt heads, but we will miss all of the fun, so were going to seperate others for then they can butt heads? Sounds fun to me, but let's not try it with military. I would hate for abunch of our units to be stuck during a war because the navy official and land official is butting heads.

I would be just like in real life. All I want is a government structure that can change with the needs of the people.

 

[DaveShack]

Gotta type this quick and then get ready for work.

The reason for different departments, merging in places and splitting in others, is not to adjust the workloads of the departments we were using or to make them more or less powerful. The idea is to separate strategic from tactical.

As for bureaucracy (cut & paste works once you think someone might have spelled it right) the proposal should be adding more polling of strategic issues, and taking polling out of tactical ones. This is a reaction to all the posts during DG5 lamenting the fact that the people holding authority aren't leaders anymore, but just glorified secretaries who copy the poll results into their instructions. That was already killing the game, so I don't get the argument that trying to change it for the better is worse.

Strider, your comments about deliberately holding things up by fighting to change back to the old structure (if this passes) are troubling. Not that you wouldn't have the right to do just that, anyone can try... But not sure if actions to deliberately hold up the game like that would sit well with the majority, and I might have to run the idea of a frivolous lawsuit rule by them again.

 

[ravensfire]

To get back to DS's proposal ...

Contrary to some of the ideas tossed out, there are two things I'd like to see in this government style.

First, fairly concrete lines between the planners and the implementers. I understand that DS was thinking about avoiding delays, etc by having the planners step down if needed, but we can find other ways around it. Keep the barriers up and solid.

Second, contrary to what some have suggested, reduce the number of offices in each area. Our best games, and terms, have been where we have had active debates and discussions. Look at our past few terms - we had minimal debates and the majority of elections were either one candidate or a lopsided victory. That's not healthy for the DG. We need a structure that will foster debate and discussion. Creating so many offices that everyone can have one is a joke and detrimental to good government. Sorry, CG, nobody should have a "right" to an office, nor feel that they "must" have one. Some people are excellent long-term planners, others are wonder micro-managers, some are both. This idea allows citizens to focus on one area or another.

Possible Structure
Planners
-- Urban planning: focuses on city placement, workers, settlers and urban planning
-- Military planning: focuses on troop levels, evaluation of threat levels and strategic goals for conflict (ie, capture west edge of Target civ only)
-- Foreign Relations planning: focuses on diplomatic matters, trade issues, espionage and science

Implimenters
-- Domestic: Workers, Settlers, City placement, provincial boundaries
-- Military: Troop movement
-- FA: Trade, Diplomacy, Espionage
-- STC (Science, Trade, Culture): Science queue, all trades and monitor cultural levels (including wonders)
-- Governors: Run the cities within their province, establish prioritizied list of worker actions

Judiciary
-- CJ, JA, PD: It's worked better than any alternative.

Players
-- There is no President. None. Instead, during each election cycle, citizens can volunteer to be a DP. A multi-choice poll (private) is then created with each citizen's name on it. If a citizen gets a certain amount of votes, they go into a pool of citizens. The mods will psuedo-randomly sort the list (placing anyone that has DP'd the previous two terms at the bottom). DP's, and the CoC, will be pulled from that list. If needed, the list will loop.

Turn Chats
-- Based on availability of plans. The DP for the turn chat schedules it 2-5 days after the previous turn chat, so long as valid strategic plans exist.

[EDIT: Late thought - sorry]
Administrator
-- The Administrator is an elected official that monitors the mundane matters of Government. They run the elections during their term, develop and monitor city names, create official threads if not created in a timely manner and all other duties as needed.
-- Note - based on Oct's idea. May also be placed on the CJ's plate as well.
[/edit]

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Strider, your comments about deliberately holding things up by fighting to change back to the old structure (if this passes) are troubling. Not that you wouldn't have the right to do just that, anyone can try... But not sure if actions to deliberately hold up the game like that would sit well with the majority, and I might have to run the idea of a frivolous lawsuit rule by them again.

It's a hobby, apparently. There is, however, no reason to prevent him, and lots of reasons to allow him to do as he pleases. After all, it is the rights of each citizen to propose changes and legislation as they see fit.

There's a fairly long tradition of this - see DG4's mammoth JR's in an attempt to crash that game. Certain actions of DG5 seem to have been done for the same reason.

My suggestion is that should people, regardless of the eventual game format, attempt repeated, continual attempts to massively reform the governement, others bring those points up in every discussion, proposal and election that person is involved in. Peer pressure can work, it just must be used first.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

That's basically the crux of the argument against instituting these changes. And it's not a bad one. However, DaveShack (someone whom I would consider a veteran) has obviously worked hard at this proposal, it deserves to be heard and thought over and discussed. Having a knee-jerk reaction to something new just because it's different doesn't help anything, and it certainly doesn't advance discussion. There's no set date for when the next DG has to begin (thank god), so we're free to discuss this as much as we want. The more we discuss, the better the plan becomes.

We do not know if it will work, or what will happen untill we actually implement it. As such, it will not get better or worst, it will just be a differant style. A style that just so happens to have not been tested yet. I will tell you right now, and guarantee this, NOTHING will happen the way you plan. Every single thing you come up with will have to be changed or modified one way or the other. I have no plans of spending the entire game trying to fix abunch of flaws in our constitution. We've done it before, let's not take a trip through hell again, please.

The idea that we should stick with the old system simply because it's what we've always had does not hold much water from my point of view. I still feel that the first Civ3 demogame was for me the most enjoyable at least in part due to the fact that we were still exploring what could be done with our chosen form of government and a degree of creativity was actively encouraged in that regard. Close to three years of essentially the same structure has slowly but surely snuffed that aspect of the game out and despite regular overhauls of the constitution there have been no changes sufficient to take the game back from the rather humdrum affair it has become and make it fresh and exciting again.
At present I don't consider the proposals in this thread ready for use, but think that we should - as Ashburnham says - discuss them until we either produce a clear and fully viable alternative to the present system or discover reasons for rejecting the suggested changes that go beyond those of tradition or distaste for constitutional wrangling.

I don't know about the large majority of you, but I don't find it fun having to read through acouple pages of laws and rules, heck, I find it even less fun reading about us making them. What I find interesting in this game is not the laws, rules, or the government. It's the gameplay, the concept, the extras, and people. Personally, I'd prefer not to have to read through a completely alien concept, just to have fun. I've done it once, spent a good DG working it all out, and I have no intention of doing it again. Granted, back then I was about 13 years old, but that doesn't change my point. What will this give us? Not much, unless you guys can come up with an extremely simple system, which this is far from it, and likely won't work in a game like this anyway, we lose more than we gain. We alienate acouple of the older players, and we still confuse the hell out of any of the new players.

Change can be good yes, but there is no point in changing anything, when it will just be more work, and basicly the same results. Most people do not care about the laws or the rules, they care about the same thing I do. I fail to see how this will make the game anymore interesting than it was before, and I see many many ways how this will make it even less interesting.

The reason for different departments, merging in places and splitting in others, is not to adjust the workloads of the departments we were using or to make them more or less powerful. The idea is to separate strategic from tactical.

Seperating the government will just cause to much independence . If you were to seperate it into long term planning and short term planning, you would want them as closely tied as possible. This achieves the opposite. Seperating strategic from tactical would be the equivalant of saying we want a democracy, but allowing abunch of communists to get us there. Make them as closely tied as possible.

Strider, your comments about deliberately holding things up by fighting to change back to the old structure (if this passes) are troubling. Not that you wouldn't have the right to do just that, anyone can try... But not sure if actions to deliberately hold up the game like that would sit well with the majority, and I might have to run the idea of a frivolous lawsuit rule by them again.

It's not holding anything up, I am merely trying to convince people that working on this any further woud be a waste of time, needless to say I consider the time I've spent typing up this post to be a complete waste of time also, but however, I do wish to see this game continue in a fairly stable state, so I am forcing myself to do it.

Troubling? When did I say I was going to hold things up by trying to change it? I did not, and I suggest that next time you do not try to make things up. I said that if this was to pass, I would try to get it changed back to the old system, and if I was to gain majority support and get it changed back, that it would be fairly confusing to switch a new system, mid-game. Granted, that might hold the game up, but I'm sure that if I was forced to, I could think of some way to make the change go smoothly. By the way, next time do not expect me to be happy when you try to twist my words.

I am however, going to make a quick accusation. You try to nail me for holding up the game, but I'm going to ask you this. What did you think the reaction to a brand new concept would be to some of the older players? Where you just to focused on the idea itself that you failed to see the consequences?

It's a hobby, apparently. There is, however, no reason to prevent him, and lots of reasons to allow him to do as he pleases. After all, it is the rights of each citizen to propose changes and legislation as they see fit.

There's a fairly long tradition of this - see DG4's mammoth JR's in an attempt to crash that game. Certain actions of DG5 seem to have been done for the same reason.

My suggestion is that should people, regardless of the eventual game format, attempt repeated, continual attempts to massively reform the governement, others bring those points up in every discussion, proposal and election that person is involved in. Peer pressure can work, it just must be used first.

As it has already been shown in this thread, I am not alone in this fight, I am just in the minority. Breezing it away, instead of directing your focus on our worries will cause more disruption than anything I can do. You are accusing me of something that is just as much your fault as it is mine, atleast I'm willing to admit that I'm at fault.

Instead of doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, how about we work to find something that everyone likes? Something that mixes the two, the new and the old, to make everyone atleast content? Something that allows us to use the stability of the old system, to test new ideas?

Also, may I try to clarify something? I am in no way close minded to a new concept, as long as it continues to stay with the old layout. It is a changing of the layout I am against, for reasons I have said already.