DISCUSSION!!! Have the rules gone TOO far??<---------

[Civanator]

I opened this because i was thinking, have the rules gone way too far? I mean the national parks thing that passed, that will cripple the production of cities. Alsoo other rules like only being able to run for one position. IMHO, and IIRC this doesn't encourage more citizens to run for office, it just kills others who run for office. Before this rule, Anyone can go and run for 2 positions and hae the assurance that they were gonna at least get a deputy position, and possibaly a governer. Now you have to throw everything away to try to get an office. For example, say Citizen1 was a governer for 2 terms, and wanted to stay governer, but also wanted to become a leader, or atleast deputy of Foriegn Affairs. Citizen1 would hav to throw away governership to become atleast a deputy and get experience in FA's.

anything else that you think has gotten out of hand post here and post now!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think that we certainly have a lot of rules. However, the majority of citizens on two occassions now have supported limiting the number of offices that folks can run for.

I recommend that you gain support for changing the law and then doing so, as the law itself in this case isn't a problem given the overwhemling support it has recieved in polls.

 

[Phoenix]

I think that there are just to many rules - I don't know some of them.

 

[chiefpaco]

Yes there are. There are also not enough.

Without rules, it is difficult for everyone to agree on how to play. On the other hand, we definitely can not cover every aspect and possibility (who know someone could stop a turn chat?).

In my opinion, the rules are starting to look more like restrictions. Instead of stressing what everyone can do to contribute, it is starting to list what everyone is not allowed to do. I am getting less comfortable with the controversies that arise in the game and a lot of things are getting personal.

When I joined, we had a very small rule base. The game seemed to work about as well as it does now. Everything was about as simple as could be - majority votes, open turn chats, and democracy rules.

I rarely participate in rule development. I feel it always detracts from the game to change the rules mid-way through. I also tend to reject new proposals and even the new constitutional rewrites.

I wish we could come to a better acceptance over things and not worry about some missing details as often. I also wish we lived in a perfect world... however, I'm not sure what can be done to make that happen.

 

[Civanator]

i think we should go back to the old set of rules and constitution.

 

[Falcon02]

I agree with one thing... when Role-playing goes into Law... THAT's when the rules go too far. National Parks should have never gone into the Constitution. I forget how I voted before but while I don't have a problem with National Parks their protection should be "assumed" and then going into a PI if a DP intrudes that Park, as going against the will of the people.

 

[Richard III]

No, the problem is that you guys are making the mistake of substituting rules for "play." You are trying to manage conflicts instead of revelling in them.

It's Civconsensus, not civdemocracy, as I keep saying.

 

[Daaraa]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Yes there are. There are also not enough.

Without rules, it is difficult for everyone to agree on how to play. On the other hand, we definitely can not cover every aspect and possibility (who know someone could stop a turn chat?).

In my opinion, the rules are starting to look more like restrictions. Instead of stressing what everyone can do to contribute, it is starting to list what everyone is not allowed to do. I am getting less comfortable with the controversies that arise in the game and a lot of things are getting personal.

When I joined, we had a very small rule base. The game seemed to work about as well as it does now. Everything was about as simple as could be - majority votes, open turn chats, and democracy rules.

I rarely participate in rule development. I feel it always detracts from the game to change the rules mid-way through. I also tend to reject new proposals and even the new constitutional rewrites.

I wish we could come to a better acceptance over things and not worry about some missing details as often. I also wish we lived in a perfect world... however, I'm not sure what can be done to make that happen.

If you were Godinex I'd say Amen. I completly agree with your words.

 

[donsig]

Yes, they have.

 

[Cyc]

One of the reasons the rule set has grown so large is because a LOT of people keep whining. This makes other people who feel the opposite whine. Then we have the conflict that needs to be managed, like Ricky3 says. It has not grown too big, it has grown to the appropriate size to quell the whining. If you throw out the work that has already been done, I promise you, you will hear nothing but whining until you've duplicated what you have now. Good Luck!

 

[Zur]

IMHO, the rules are way too complicated. The demogame is supposed to be fun. To many rules detract from the main purpose of the demogame which is to play the game and hold discussions. Witness the incredible amount of noise in polls clarifying the quorum, length of the poll, the lack of an "abstain" option etc...

 

[Chieftess]

Exactly Zur. A lot of newer citizens (and even vets alike) have fallen victim to that rule (and to the quorum). Just look at the German Ethnic Group's name change poll. The game is getting a bit too formal.

 

[disorganizer]

This is mostly not because of some specialized rules (like the park), but because our polling system and organization is just ridiculously to beurocratic.
A good point would be the "turn-1" polls, as they were close only because there was no discussion about it (but in fact, there was. just some people didnt seem to notice it)

We would have handled this before by just voting no to the proposal, for example. But we would have had an informational poll then. A poll showing the will of citizenry, not just closed in the middle of polling only because some formal standards were not held.

 

[Civanator]

see? we have support! 10 out of 15 people say the rules have gone too far.

 

[Almightyjosh]

But Civ, I think the problem is that people have specific gripes. I think that we have alot of rules,m but I don't see it as a problem. I think we operate better with a more comprehensive rule system. Sure, some law that has been passed may be not-so-good, but if we pass it, we should either work with it or try and change it, not complain about how many laws we have.

Plus, I think discussions about law are one of the interesting parts of the game. They are often far more intellectual and fiercly argued than simple game choices. Laws are part of the rich tapestry of the demogame. Besisdes, if you don't like red tape and burocracy then why go with democracy and rule of law?

It seems that people are whineing about two tyoes of 'gone too far'
First, when the law does something they don't want it to and they disagree (like getting annoyed at the NP law). Well firstly, get over it. What the law says it what we all decided upon and disagreeing with it stopping you from doing something is no excuse. If you don't like the law, live with it or try to get support for a change.

Second, when people don't mind the basis for a law, but it intrudes where it shouldn't. This is easy. Learn the law, abide by the law. For instance the -1 turns thing; really dis, you are a clever fellow, how much effort would it take to conduct a visible discussion and create a valid poll. The law is very clear and it is there for a reason.

@ all
Maybe our laws take some effort to learn, but they are resonably clear. There is a reason we have the laws we do, it is to stop people from taking certain actions which would really harm the game and really harm democracy. If you don't like the law, bad luck, and if you think it is too complex, as someone to explain it to you. It doesn't take that much effort to stay legal.

 

[Cyc]

Well said, AJ!

 

[disorganizer]

@AJ:
sometimes, i heard the sentence:
"well, this is not defined in the law and with this i refuse it"
especially with the park system, or mayorial powers, etc...
so some people really WANT to be ruled by law. some are not willing or able to work together in a cooperative way, and some even dont reply to requests.
the only way to handle this is rules.
but our problem is that we have too much formularism in our rules, too much administrative rules, and too less roleplay and gameplay rules.

i could offer a solution (again, as since term2):
* basic ruleset, explaining the principles of the game
like "decissions have to be based on citizen input" in this vague way. hard to change, but because of this only defining general things and no details
* a set of administrational process-definitions. they can be changed by simple citizen poll and reflect all aspects of the game.

the basic ruleset should concentrate greatly on giving the decission powers for the game to the forum, and not to the elected people... this is after all a democracy game, not a republic or representative game.
the first ruleset we had stated many things much clearer that the rules now, but lacked detail in other areas which led to confusion.
the problem is we put all in one sack and tried to solve all problems at one.

 

[disorganizer]

@all:
i propose to use the 4th subforum as "rule discussion and poll" forum.
any thoughts on that one? it will reduce constitutional debatte-"clutter" in the other forums. people interested in rules can look there, and all others will ignore it.