DGVI Constitution: General Discussion

[mhcarver]

I am short on time but let me say this:
I am against codifying the Judicial procedures, Ravensfire has made a strong argument for this and I agree with him. The only point I disagree is that Citizen complaints and the way the court ratifies the code should be codified. CC's need only a vague definition that states something along the lines of the accused being considered innocent until proven guilty, poll interpretation and stating the ruling is final. The COL or constitution should require that justices have a 2/3 agreement on the procedures. THis way judicial elections will also focus on the issue of what a candidate will do to the JP if elected.

 

[DaveShack]

To respond directly to that point, however, I would simply say - too bad. That leader could not convince the Governor that their plans for the province should be interrupted. What's wrong with that? Who's to say the Governor is in the wrong here - perhaps that leader is being greedy, demanding and trying to push demands on a province that isn't ready for it.

Wrong starting assumption, that it is the leader who is driving the plan. The people are driving the plan, I already said that a majority agreed with it. The people decide what they want, the leader makes a plan, that plan gets implemented. Unless someone decides to throw a wrench in the plan, illegally, by ignoring the plan and building whatever they desire.

Governors don't usually discuss what they're going to build, and they often ignore what the people ask for, and my proposal is intended to be a relatively gentle response to that problem.

Again to repeat for the 3rd time, I would never condone telling a Governor which city is to build something, or exactly when, nor would I condone giving him a list of things which equals or exceeds production capacity. The idea is to say out of your 250 shields this turnchat, I need 5 swordsmen. Where they are produced and when is your decision. What you do with the rest is your decision. This is balance -- having the governor as the sole driving force on builds is unbalanced.

 

[Cyc]

Wrong starting assumption, that it is the leader who is driving the plan. The people are driving the plan, I already said that a majority agreed with it. The people decide what they want, the leader makes a plan, that plan gets implemented. Unless someone decides to throw a wrench in the plan, illegally, by ignoring the plan and building whatever they desire.

Uh, no. Wrong starting asumption, DS. I knew you were going to say that, and you didn't answer my question earlier. You say the people are the driving factor, they decided what they want and the Leader implements the plan he designs. Therefore, the Leader is the driving factor of the quota, unless we make the Leader poll every aspect of any quota the he or she wants to impose on each Governor. The Leader is posting a quota, not the people.

Governors don't usually discuss what they're going to build, and they often ignore what the people ask for, and my proposal is intended to be a relatively gentle response to that problem.

That is why each Governor has a Province thread. If the people REALLY wanted a plan implemented in a Province they would post in said thread their feelings on the matter. If no one posts there, then obviously the PLAN is not the will of the people. It's just the will of the Leader who wants to impose a quota. I've never had a problem getting a Governor to listen to what I feel is the right thing to build. I made the effort and worked at it to get the results I needed. THAT'S what needs to be done. Not some Gestapo setup where the Governors receive their orders from the varios Leaders before they can post their Instructions.

Again to repeat for the 3rd time, I would never condone telling a Governor which city is to build something, or exactly when, nor would I condone giving him a list of things which equals or exceeds production capacity. The idea is to say out of your 250 shields this turnchat, I need 5 swordsmen. Where they are produced and when is your decision. What you do with the rest is your decision. This is balance -- having the governor as the sole driving force on builds is unbalanced.

Again, I'll repeat. You can sugar-coat your attempt at controlling the production from the Executive Branch, but you won't change my mind. Let's look at your idea. The Military Leader comes in and says "out of your 250 shields this turnchat, I need 5 swordsmen". Then the Cultural Minister comes in and says "Ok, we just got literature, I need a library in your three largest cities". Then Domestic comes in and demands Settlers and Workers for Infrastructure. And the President doesn't want Swords, he knows better. He wants 7 Horses. So who has prioprity? All demands will fit into the vague goal of the people. Each helps. I've got an idea....

Why don't we just let each Leader present their case and let the Governor decide?

 

[DaveShack]

OK, nobody is interested in strategy. It will bite us on a higher difficulty level when it really matters what we build, but if the people want to repeat another DG with an unfocused rabble of governors with total power over build, then so be it.

 

[Provolution]

I agree DS, this should be the very platform of leaders, a military plan for the entire term which could serve as a base for quotas. As it is, the choice of military leaders would be of no importance, as no plan is needed to be elected, and in fact, if you have a plan, everyone will use it against you. Where the ideal types for one faction would be some lazy smoker posting a war plan in the last minute with a random assortment of unit at hand for that moment. If people prefer a makeshift solution game with an avalanche of legalese and dominant governors developing their pet cities against overall strategy, then it would not be a real strategy game anylonger.

I am all for strenghtening governors, but not making them the ultimate vetoing power.
Acccountability is needed all over. Governors should work as hard as leaders, have as much powers and be as accountable. The problem now is to get enough leaders for the ballot, not governors.

 

[Ashburnham]

I agree that accountability should be needed for all facets of the government, but I don't see how quotas provide that accountability. All they do is make the role of the Governor irrelevant. The idea that Governors operate however they please and are beholden to no one is ridiculous. They are servant of the people, just as Ministers are, and like Ministers they operate under the guidence of the people. If the people were opposed to the actions a Governor took, he would be just as in violation of the WOTP as any other official. And we have a system for dealing with that. The idea that Governors are somehow above the law if we don't have quotas is simply not true.

 

[Provolution]

Quotas is the only way to develop a military structure of a nation, otherwise everything will be at whim, and military strategy would end up a last minute show with random units.
I think Term IV compared to other terms proved that.

 

[Cyc]

If this system we have been using is so flawed, how could we have made it through 5 Demogames? Monarch you say? DG3 was Emperor. I don't remember the kingdom falling apart.

 

[GenMarshall]

If this system we have been using is so flawed, how could we have made it through 5 Demogames? Monarch you say? DG3 was Emperor. I don't remember the kingdom falling apart.

IIRC, Demogame #2 Was a game played on Emperor.

 

[Ashburnham]

Quotas is the only way to develop a military structure of a nation, otherwise everything will be at whim, and military strategy would end up a last minute show with random units.
I think Term IV compared to other terms proved that.

I'm sorry, you're blaming Term 4 on the lack of a quota system? That's pretty bold, considering there wasn't a quota in place for any of the other terms in any Demogame ever.

I hate to keep saying this, but quotas are simply a bad idea. We don't need an arbitrary system to ensure that Governors provide queus that are in line with the needs of the people, or Ministers. When I was the Culture Minister, I worked with several Governors on building Wonders and other Culture buildings. It worked fine. Interoffice relations is an integral part of government, and replacing that with a restrictive and unbalanced system takes that aspect of government-simulation away.

 

[Provolution]

for the same reason some want to use laws to emulate governments, some of us prefer some long term plans, budgets and preplanning. So it seems this will be a legalist-governors game above anything else. Of course such planning is not strictly needed, but such a planning would force the ministers to think ahead per term and project units builds. This quota system could indeed be somewhat slack in its nature, only requiring the builds of a few mandatory units.

 

[Cyc]

Just a so-called legalist-Governor speaking up again, Postmaster Provolution. Using your long term planning scheme, what Term or what game were you planning on posting any notices for the PBEM Match you are setting up? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Provolution]

Ah, my gamer machine crashed, so I need to reinstall Civ3 and everything, my brother got the CD, so I am kind of stuck in a limbo.

 

[Gres]

I have avoided posting on this thread because it seems quite silly to me. The arguments for quotas are weak and yet keep being returned to. I will just put my two cents in because thats what I do.

Ashburnham has repeated over and over that all DGs in the past have never used quotas and have at least survived. Why say now that quotas are needed or the entire game will come to a crashing halt and all will burn?

for the same reason some want to use laws to emulate governments, some of us prefer some long term plans, budgets and preplanning.

Quotas are not needed for long term plans, budgets, or preplanning. I don't see Bush telling the American public that "this and that is my plan and therefore will be carried out because I says so." He says "this and that is my plan and I will WORK WITH many agencies, states, and the people to make it happen."


All very silly indeed.

 

[Provolution]

LOL Gres, and you guys got the biggest foreign debt on Earth. If this goes on, we in Norway would like to get back Pre-Columbian Vinland for interest.

Never use the present government for long term plan comparison Gres, friendly advise.
But again, I am leaving this altogether and I wish you all an entertaining game.
I just wanted to hint that some of the players I met liked this way of operation, but this is subject to economic ideology and direction of political thinking.
I recon you guys want a top heavy confederate state with powerful governors and plenty of lawyers, this will appeal to some players and deter others.

Call me stupid if you want to.

Really, you do not need quotas, you can do without, you can also do away with some of the laws in the same instance.

 

[Gres]

Not getting into RL.
I was simply using Bush as an example. You seem to like to blow things out of proportion. Bye.

 

[Eklektikos]

If this system we have been using is so flawed, how could we have made it through 5 Demogames? Monarch you say? DG3 was Emperor. I don't remember the kingdom falling apart.

Assuming that you are (as CG noted) talking about DG2, the big difference between then and now is that there is no longer a mechanism equivalent to a Council Vote that can be used to override seriously flawed instructions. That, or the knowledge that it could be used if deemed necessary, helped smooth the playing of that particular game quite considerably in my opinion.

 

[Chieftess]

Assuming that you are (as CG noted) talking about DG2, the big difference between then and now is that there is no longer a mechanism equivalent to a Council Vote that can be used to override seriously flawed instructions. That, or the knowledge that it could be used if deemed necessary, helped smooth the playing of that particular game quite considerably in my opinion.

I agree with that. Would you really want an instruction that says, "Disband all cities"?

Speaking of which, we should make it a rule that all instructions must be backed by instructions and polls. Not just an "on a whim instruction". That means governors too, must hold discussions on what to build.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I agree with that. Would you really want an instruction that says, "Disband all cities"?

Speaking of which, we should make it a rule that all instructions must be backed by instructions and polls. Not just an "on a whim instruction". That means governors too, must hold discussions on what to build.

Except for the fact that every day before the turnchat, I would have instructions up, as well as a screenshot and city info in Hairando's thread. I said comments were appreciated, but rarely did I ever get any. Governors seem to be underrated...

Perhaps you can put out instructions, but if no one posts in them, are they still valid?

 

[classical_hero]

I agree with that. Would you really want an instruction that says, "Disband all cities"?

Speaking of which, we should make it a rule that all instructions must be backed by instructions and polls. Not just an "on a whim instruction". That means governors too, must hold discussions on what to build.

We are so worried about the people. Why can't we allow our leaders to lead? They will still be accountable to us because they are electable and if they are truely bad, then we can CC them. I would prefer leaders to followers. If we had to discuss everything then you can see how childish some of the discusiion became and nothing got done.