Discussion - Old, Current, or New ruleset.

[DaveShack]

Good luck trying to push forward the traditional system to the newer DGers. Strider tried it and it failed .

Strider didn't exactly fail. Although they weren't his chosen method of change, the piece at a time reforms were motivated by his and Curu's comments (among others of course), and got strong support. The problem was in pushing traditional for tradition's sake, and slamming this game's system without backing that up with reasoning. If the focus had been against "number crunching" or some other tangible problem with the system instead of the generic "don't like it" approach, then it would have made a lot more headway and a lot faster.

Remember though, I don't want to just resurrect the old system without addressing the problems those earlier games had. The biggest problem of the earlier games was the feeling that leaders only jobs were to post polls and have their instructions point to the results. We had a big problem with uncontested offices then too because nobody wanted offices which had no real power.

 

[Mr. G]

This is probably going to be a stupid question, but have you guys ever tried a Senate?

 

[DaveShack]

This is probably going to be a stupid question, but have you guys ever tried a Senate?

The only stupid question is one that isn't asked. (well, that's the standard quote anyway)

Yes, we have indeed tried a Senate, on several occasions, though it might not be exactly the same thing you're thinking about. One game, the Senate was made up of all the Governors, plus enough members at large to ensure at least three members. The power of the Senate in that game was to set the national budget (slider levels) and to approve use of funds. Sadly, it was pretty much a failure because all but 1 of the Senate votes were 1-0-0 with 2 not voting. Another time we tried a Senate, again the Governors were the members, and the Senate had to approve any amendments to the rules by a 2/3 majority. The argument against that clause was that 2 people could totally hold up progress, since at the time we had 4 governors.

For most in-game decisions we use semi-pure Democracy -- a simple, usually straight up or down, vote on the issue.

We have also tried a "council" system where all the advisor positions (Domestic, Foreign Affairs, Military, Culture, Science, Trade) were on the council, and a council vote could override decisions made by an individual department head. Council votes were allowed during the turnchat during some past games -- leading to infamous 1-0 council votes when the President and one advisor were the only ones online at the time.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

The "new" system bunched up too much stuff together, and the fact that we went with the largest provinces in demogame history also killed participation, since there wasn't many governorship positions to run for.

Really? I think more governorships would've added to the empty offices we have already.



Agenda:
-Decide on variant/type of game we will play.
-Decide settings for the game (less land = less room for provinces, so less cities per province; if archipelago, a la Chieftess' comment, a navy commander).
-Decide on different aspects of the constitution, write it up. Make sure it is workable.

Does that work?

 

[classical_hero]

Let's try to keep this one as simple and as civil as possible.

Why does that bit in the Bold need to be there in the first place? Just proves why I left.

 

[ravensfire]

Really? I think more governorships would've added to the empty offices we have already.

Best comment in the thread.

Any system we create needs to be stable at the end-game, where our participation is the lowest.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

Political Parties will spawn elitism, which is against the forum rules. Block voting is also not that fun also with groups of people just voting on the party lines just because the person is a member of that party while the more qualified person gets gybbed.

All I see in Political Parties is an elitist fraternaty group that will only accept people, as Chieftess pointed out, that only agree to the party's beliefs and thus becomes exclusive and elitist. It furthers becomes elitiest when voting blocks comes into play.

If we do establish a political party system (Which I hope we do not), then I will form my own political party based on the ideas of the Independent Party of the United States giving citizens an opportunity to associate and hold beliefs in different spectrums of the demogame. Also, my party will not advocate voting blocks and the member is free to vote for a person he or she feels like voting.

As I said before, Political Parties were bad news in the Civ2 Demogame and were imediately removed because it caused nothing but mudslinging and mini flamewars inbetween the party lines. I do hope that we never see any political parties to make an apperance in DG7.

Here is what the original moderator of the demogame said about political parties in the demogame.


I personaly hoped that the subject of political parties in the demogame would be "the old horse that's been beat on that subject a million times can be put away." (Octavian X). I guess some people want to intergrate the Model Parlament (Which has political parties) into the demogame.

Theres no forum rule against "elitism"...

 

[Provolution]

As if there is is no elitism without political parties... double standards...

 

[DaveShack]

I'm kinda getting annoyed with all this "elitism" talk. Let's look at a definition:

Eliteism: 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. 2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class. b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Breaking this down, the fundamental quality of elitism is a "perceived superiority" on the part of the members of the class that they are somehow better than those who are not in the class. I don't see it -- where is this so-called perception of a class of "elite" people? Sure, we have people who call themselves "veteran" as a way to say they have more experience, but how does that make them "elite"?

I believe that instead of being elitist, as some people charge, the DemoGame is actually a meritocracy. We all judge each other on the quality of what we say, the effectiveness of our plans, and the correctness of our positions. We notice which citizens post high quality and well thought out material, and which go on diatribes. We notice the players who take a position and stick to it and those who shift their position according to the changing winds of public opinion. We notice those who are willing to compromise to move the game forward and those who dig their heels in until the very end. We keep mental track of barbs thrown, and we also take note of over-reactions to those barbs. In the end we subconsciously (or in some cases maybe overtly) rank people based on merit, and give higher consideration to those with the best reputation.

So some words of counsel to anyone who may think your postings are under-represented, who think you're being ignored, or think things end up being done a certain way because the so-called "elites" want it that way. It's not about being "better" or "worse" in an intangible way like in old-timer vs. newcomer. It's about what you say, and how you say it, and how you act. Every game we take some complete newcomers and put them straight into high offices, because of the quality of their work -- take Mad-bax and Bertie this game as examples. Others remain unnoticed because their content has little to offer, and occasionally someone with a great reputation will fade away as their content loses merit.

IMHO, there is no conspiracy, and no elite class.

 

[Strider]

Here we sit, once again, intent on composing a order that is engaging and thrilling. Yet, once again, we forget that conversion does nothing but bind our minds in fantasy for a short while.

All I see is proposals that changes things, a reversal of the effect we want. We have not solved our dilemma, and we are well on our way to making it worst. Adding new every game does not fix our problems, but just makes more of them. This is the exact same thing I said last game, and yet we allowed ourselves to be caught up in the entanglement of something new. Now look at where we stand, the "new" only worsened our problems.

Look around you, look at where we stand! Hell, I can't even say stand without shaking my head, for we aren't even doing that! Did the new constitution do anything that aided us? No, in the end we've changed nothing! All of our problems remain, and now we've created even more problems for ourselves!

-----------

First thing we need to do is stop focusing on Civ3, and focus on the Democracy Game. So I propose the following: Give citizen groups (and guilds, but I'll get to that later) some real power to effect the game. This way we have more ways than just discussions and polls to gather what the people want. We can implement this by doing the following:

Citizen Groups:
Citizen Groups are fairly easy, and we don't really have to change much. Simple enough, when people unite to one cause, they are more likely to get what they want. We could also allow the domestic minister to allow certain citizen groups control of cities that lay outside of a province.

Guilds:
Guilds are specilized citizen groups that have abit more power. Basically, there is one guild for each government office (not counting President, Governors, and Judiciary). The leader of the guild is that current offices deputy. Guilds have the power to veto a leaders instructions, if they did not receive popular support (IE: A leader did not poll the orders). That way, if we do plan on giving leaders more power, like we should. There is a nice checks and balances.

Okay, now onto the slouching of partcipation. Like I said before, are problem is that we never describe anywhere what the demogame is. Why should someone join something, when they have almost no idea what it's purpose is? Better forum organization, and thread organization would help considerably also. Describing some of the more confusing portions of the constitution (or even creating guidlines for play) will aid us also. Also, making less government offices won't fix our problem, it will only lessen the blow.

Now dealing with Political parties. Hell no, we don't even have them and were already bickering like abunch of nationalists at a liberal banquet. We dont need them, and there not much more than a point of interest.

Onwards to varients, mods, and the like. Why do we need them? Because a normal Epic game is no longer fun? We don't need any varients or mods when were in this bad of shape. Anyone who's played Civ3 for a long time would have played them all, and anyone who's just starting to play will be scared off by them. This is just an example of attempting to create a change, that does nothing to fix the dilemmas were in. Like I said above, this will not make the game anymore entertaining or enthralling. It will just multiply our problems. Evo has tried 3 varient/mod demogames, and they all had alot of partcipation at the start, but then fell apart and never got finished. It's not what we play, it's how we play.

These are just a few of the things we need to work on. I'm short on food right now, so my ability to think is not at it's best. My main point remains though (actually I typed that above part almost 2 hours ago... damn this post took forever). We must stop adding new things to the game, without fixing it first. Sure, if that new idea is geared towards fixing one of our problems, I'll think about it. However, something new just for the heck of it is ridiculus.

As for this discussion being to early, on account that we've yet to decide on a mod/varient. All I can say is "what the hell are you waiting for then? The discussion died down days ago! Don't wait for someone to come by and babysit you, post the god damn poll and lets keep moving!"

Looking back on me, I see that I never really got it right. I always got wrapped up in things that were useless, both to myself and to the game. I never stopped to think about the game, only on things that furthered my own goals. Although, I can say with all honesty, that everyone else did the same. Now is the time to change that, now is the time for us to stand on our own again, instead of crawling around for scraps of power left on the ground. We are crushing ourselves under our own heels, without even realizing it. Anyone notice my comment in the preliminary discussion thread, about "feeling so crushed"? I highly doubt I will sway many, and I'm actually not counting on it. I doubt many will accept any apology I have to offer, although in the end. Should I apologize, when those I'm offering it to, are guily of the same crime?

Nonetheless, these are still sad times for the demogame.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

While I agree with citizen groups, I don't with guilds. Citizen groups are fine. With enough interest in a particular field, they can saw decisions towards their goal and what they want to achive (all the luxuries, or eliminating all enemies, or getting lots of gold). With guilds, I don't like vetoing a leader's instructions. If you don't like an instruction, post in that official's thread.

Anyone who's played Civ3 for a long time would have played them (them=variants) all...

Please tell me you are NOT saying everyone who has been playing lots of Civ3 has played every possible variant, as that is 100% NOT true. I will assure you, most people play more epic games than variants. Therefore, the first thing they get a 'burnout' of is epic games. They turn to variants for different ideas, and more fun. If we want to keep participation up, which you addressed in your post, we need to keep it fun. Sticking to an idea we've used 6 times in a row will not cut it.

We need a simple ruleset that is to the point.

 

[DaveShack]

Any system we create needs to be stable at the end-game, where our participation is the lowest.

-- Ravensfire

I'd rate this one as an even better comment.

When writing the rules, we focus mostly on the early game. That's why we always forget espionage, for example, and place so much emphasis on who controls city placement.

I'd like to renew a suggestion I made a while back, to address the known problem of the government not reflecting the lifecycle of the game. Instead of having a fixed set of offices which does not change, plan ahead for that change by building in changes to the government structure when we reach certain milestones.

 

[ravensfire]

We need a simple ruleset that is to the point.

To forestall donsig - see DGIII.

And everything related to it. For better or worse, we have citizens who have, at times, sworn to do all they could to bring a particular ruleset down. There is a naive belief, that I share, that people will generally cooperate.

It's false.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I agree with a lot of what Strider posted, however...

To summarize what I think I'm seeing when people leave, being bored is the leading cause of reduced participation, aside from the obvious "too busy in RL" which we can't do much about, although there are things we can do. The next leading cause of active people leaving seems to be they finally boil over on personal conflicts (their own or others), or on not being able to fix things.

How do you keep people from being bored? By changing something, or adding something. On rare occasions, by taking something away. It should be clear that doing exactly the same thing is a perfect recipe for ending up bored again. Selecting the right things to change is the hard part -- that's why I'm interested in hearing all ideas. The ones that the most people want have at least a chance of improving the DG. The ones which few people want are dangerous.

We can help RL a little bit, by making participation as easy as possible.

 

[Strider]

Please tell me you are NOT saying everyone who has been playing lots of Civ3 has played every possible variant, as that is 100% NOT true. I will assure you, most people play more epic games than variants. Therefore, the first thing they get a 'burnout' of is epic games. They turn to variants for different ideas, and more fun. If we want to keep participation up, which you addressed in your post, we need to keep it fun. Sticking to an idea we've used 6 times in a row will not cut it.

We need a simple ruleset that is to the point.

If they haven't played a varient, then there is a very good possibility it's because they don't want to play it. Of course most people play more epic games than varients, and I never said otherwise. However, you've ignored everything I said, and instead came up with some arguement that I never disputed. The majority of the Civ3 community has never played a varient, and there is nothing that we can do to make them want to try one. The one's who do play varients, don't do it for fun, they do it for the challange.

Most people do not like varients, it is as simple as that. Deciding upon one will be fruitless, and we will likely alienate alot of our potential players just by doing so. If we want to make the game more challanging, lets make the difficulty level higher, and set AI agression higher. If we want to make the game more fun, than lets focus on the things that will do that. Not on something that "might make it more fun."

Any varients or mods will not make the game any more, or even any less fun. It has the potential to, but so does a normal Epic Game. It doesn't do anything for us, and it's risking far to much. What will make the game more fun is the interactions in the game, not the type of it.

I have played this game longer than almost anyone here, and ontop of that I have a attention disorder. Yet, here I am saything that a varient will be as boring as hell, and won't do anything new for us. Strange, how this boredom theory can be turned against you.

How do you keep people from being bored? By changing something, or adding something. On rare occasions, by taking something away. It should be clear that doing exactly the same thing is a perfect recipe for ending up bored again. Selecting the right things to change is the hard part -- that's why I'm interested in hearing all ideas. The ones that the most people want have at least a chance of improving the DG. The ones which few people want are dangerous.

The ones that do not have total and complete support is even more dangerous. Even a small minority can disrupt the entire length of the democracy game. It is much better not to even propose it, much less attempt to go through with it. I am not all to worried about keeping people who is currently in the game, to remain. What I'm looking to do is to bring new people into the game. I'm not going to risk making the demogame a ghost town, just because a few vetern players are bored.

This was exactly what I talked about in my above post, they are not thinking about the game. They are thinking about themselves, and there goals. This is what will end up destroying it in the end. If they want to leave, because there bored, then it's likely for the better.

You can't please everyone, and I'm not even going to attempt to do so.

 

[zorven]

Howdy to those who remember me. I just thought I would throw out 2 thoughts.

The first, which I have been saying since DG3, is I think continuity in rulesets is a good thing because it lessens the time in between games and it allows everybody to become much more familiar with the rulesets instead of having to relearn everytime a new game is started. Therefore, I think that carrying over rulesets from game to game is the way to go. It seems like the ruleset used this time is quite a bit different from DG1-5, so mayby you should just go back to the end of DG5. Then during the game of DG7, use the system to make changes. The system is designed to be changed. This would allow for slow, gradual changes over time and the same system would just flow from the end of one game to the beginning of another. And since Judicial Reviews would also carry over, there would not be the usual flurry of judicial activity at the beginning of each game.

Second thought. One thing that kind of nagged at me was the fact that we go through an election, sometimes with platforms and debates, and yet the elected official essentially became an organizer of polls because any citizen poll that passed was the "will of the people" and must be followed. Either run the nation directly from citizen polls or allow the elected official to make thier own choices much in the way that real life elected officials do. I know the argument against will be that the elected official will do something the majority don't like. Well, such is life - vote them out of office in the next election. I think that will lead to more interest in running for office (who wants to be elected to a "powerless" office?) and will lead to a more interesting game.

 

[DaveShack]

Howdy to those who remember me. I just thought I would throw out 2 thoughts.

Hey there, good to see you again! If you want to have a seat and stay a while we can use some more participation.

The first, which I have been saying since DG3, is I think continuity in rulesets is a good thing because it lessens the time in between games and it allows everybody to become much more familiar with the rulesets instead of having to relearn everytime a new game is started. Therefore, I think that carrying over rulesets from game to game is the way to go. It seems like the ruleset used this time is quite a bit different from DG1-5, so mayby you should just go back to the end of DG5. Then during the game of DG7, use the system to make changes. The system is designed to be changed. This would allow for slow, gradual changes over time and the same system would just flow from the end of one game to the beginning of another. And since Judicial Reviews would also carry over, there would not be the usual flurry of judicial activity at the beginning of each game.

Hmm, don't think we've ever tried to carry the JR results over, but before the current ruleset got picked by a very small margin we were working on incorporating the results of DG5 JRs into the DG5 rules and making minor tweaks.

I don't know if my post on the subject of changing rules is in this thread or another one, but the basic point was that all the changes we have made were in response to problems seen in the previous game. This ruleset was supposed to cut back on the "poll everything, who needs leaders" mindset from DG5, by polling the big picture and letting leaders run with the details. It didn't work unfortunately.

Slowly changing rules over time sounds great, but we set the bar for amendments too high. The basic constitution passes with a simple majority and then the amendments take either a quorum or a higher percentage. People get frustrated by not being able to get amendments through, and we end up with a constitutional convention the next inter-game.

Second thought. One thing that kind of nagged at me was the fact that we go through an election, sometimes with platforms and debates, and yet the elected official essentially became an organizer of polls because any citizen poll that passed was the "will of the people" and must be followed. Either run the nation directly from citizen polls or allow the elected official to make thier own choices much in the way that real life elected officials do. I know the argument against will be that the elected official will do something the majority don't like. Well, such is life - vote them out of office in the next election. I think that will lead to more interest in running for office (who wants to be elected to a "powerless" office?) and will lead to a more interesting game.

Yeah, it's kinda funny how we always say we want candidates to run on a platform, and then we just overrule them anyway with a poll and shout WOTP as soon as some detail comes up.

The candidates platform is similar to another proposal. The current instance of this one is to have both out of game laws (the ones we're used to having) plus also in-game laws. Donsig suggested the same thing back in DG4, using slightly different terminology. Set it up so that an in-game law can be amended by a super-majority, but it prevents a simple majority opinion poll from changing the long-term direction. We wouldn't have long-term laws on everything, so there would still be a place for opinion polls. Make the in-game laws expire after some time passes (Strider's idea I think, and a good one), and let the leaders govern according to the in-game laws.

 

[Strider]

A poll over this topic has been started here.

 

[Icmancin]

I joined Demo 6 and left cause I got bored. And the Constitution was... unrealistic. I have a few ideas that could allow more representation of the citizens in the government.

The State Layer - "The Big Three"

The President

The President is the Head of State. He/She is the designated player. The President oversees that the Advisors plans are put through in Parliment. The President assumes the role of both Premier and President should the Premier be absent. The President has the power to veto decisions made by the Premier and Parliment with a 2/3 vote with the Internal and External Adivsors. The President is elected directly for One Term by the citizens. The President cannot hold office for more than one term unless there is no other candidate.

Internal Advisor

The Internal Advisor plans long term settlement, Wonders and Small Wonders. They plan the overall Internal defense strategy. The Internal Advisor sets long term research plans aswell. The Internal Advisor is elected directly for One Term by the citizens. The Internal Advisor cannot hold office for more than one term unless there are no other candidates.

External Advisor

The External Advisor plans long term External defense strategy as well as long term foreign affairs. The External Advisor works closely with the Defense Minister, Chief of Army, Chief of Navy, Chief of Airforce and Internal Advisor during times of war to draft a military strategy for Expansion and Home Defense. The External Advisor is elected directly for One Term by the citizens. The External Advisor cannot hold office for more than one term unless there are no other candidates.


The Government Layer - "The Kindergardeners"

Parties

There will be five locked parties, four for a victory condition, one for Citizens.

The Culture Party

The Culture Party is, of course, made for those that support a Culture Victory. Culturalists support Wonders and culture improvements. They also support Republic and Democracy government types.

The Military Party

The Military Party ops for etheir Conquest or Domination victory. They support Military Wonders and Communist, Despotism, Monarchy and Fascist government styles.

The Space Party

The Space Party is at a disadvantage early in the game. Another more suitable name might be the Scientific Party. They support educational improvements and Wonders and hope for a Space Race Victory late in the game. They support any government style as long as it pushes them forward in tech.

The Diplomatic Party

The Diplomatic Party is also at a disadvantage early in the game. The Diplomatic Party is a merge of all the Parties put together for people who can't make up their mind. They support a UN vote near the end for a victory. They mainly support Republic and Democratic governments.

The Citizens Party

The Citizens Party is a random mix party which allows any citizen to join, not mattering on victory condition. The Citizens Party have no set doctrine so the outcome is always different.


Elections

There will be one party representitive in every Town, two for City and three for Metropolises and one per Province. In the case of Cities and Metropolises there will be two (three) separate polls. The citizens vote on their representitive by must choose wisely. Every representitive must stick to their party doctrine. Citizens may vote in every "Riding" and they do not have to choose the same Party. Party representitives don't have to vote for themselves or their fellow party members. Every citizen has the right to secret ballot. The party leader must also run in a riding.

The party with the most representitives will be the ruling party. The party leader will be Premier. If the Party leader had not won a "Riding" than he must specify a representitive to take his place. The Premier then appoints the Minister of Defense, Minister of Growth, Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The other representitives to govern the Cities they were elected from as Mayors and Provinces as Governers. In the case of Cities and Metropolises the representitive who had the most votes from ALL the "Ridings" from that location is sent as Mayor. The other Representitives and non-elected party members have the right to vote in Parlimentary debates but only the elected have the right to discuss.

The Positions

The Premier

The Premier is the Head of Parliment. He\She is elected from etheir a province or City location. His Party must have the most seats. The Premier presents to the State Layer and the Citizens what his\her goal is to accomplish this term. The Premier has the power to Declare war, establish trade, set optional techs for research, create of Wonders and Ally with other Civilizations but everything must first be approved by by "The Big Three", then Parliment and then must be taken to the polls for the citizens to approve. It can then be an instruction in the Turn-Chat. The Premier may be elected for more than one term.

Minister of Defense

The Minister of Defense in the commander of all Armed Forces. He\She is appointed by the Premier but must first be elected to parliment. He\She appoints the Chiefs of Army, Air and Navy. The MOD has the power to request Military Wonders and the Comission of new Armies as well the as the power to declare war. Those must be approved by the State, Parliment and the citizens before they take effect. The naming of units and their direction and creation, the creation of Police specialists does not have to be approved and can be given as instructions in the Turn-chat but the establishment of Spies must be. The Minister of Defense may change every term depending on the Premier but the Minister can stay as long as he\she still retains a seat in Parliment.

Minister of Growth

The Minister of Growth is in charge of Culture and Infastructure. He\She is appointed by the Premier but must first be elected to parliment. He\She requests in Parliment, the creation of Wonders and city placement overseas. Mainland city creation requires no approvement. The MOG must work closely with Mayors and Governers to fit the needs of the nation and may request Engineer and Entertainer Specialists. The Minister of Growth may change every term depending on the Premier but the Minister can stay as long as he\she still retains a seat in Parliment.

Minister of Finance

The Minister of Finance is in charge of national wealth. He\She is appointed by the Premier but must first be elected to Parliment. He\She sets the budget and science research. He may request with Mayors the creation of Tax and Research Specialists. The Finance Minister must have approvement for researching optional techs. The Minister of Finance may change every term depending on the Premier but the Minister can stay as long as he\she still retains a seat in Parliment.

Minister of Foreign Affairs

The Minister of Foreign Affairs is in charge of monitering... Foreign Affairs. He\She is appointed by the Premier but must first be elected to parliment. He\She has the power to set Alliances and establish embassies and trade but those must be approved. The Minister of Foreign Affairs may change every term depending on the Premier but the Minister can stay as long as he\she still retains a seat in Parliment.



There's a bit more but do you see what I'm going for? A more realistic sort of style based on the style of the Commonwealth but especially Canada.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

There is no way we can have long-term officials. These simply didn't work. There was too much overlap. We want less positions, where their duties are specific - not something broad like "long-term planning". Heck, that could be almost anything!