Do we need to?

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall


A point i had made in the chat room (look at quote). Henceforth why issues do not ger resolved, i wont play the rpg for reason as id rather concentrate on the actual game but since the rpg got into discussion and its fast past movement. The original idea of the rpg, and correct me if im worng was to play ALONG with the game. That sure isnt happening. We got knights when chivalry hasnt been discovered. We got a stock market, yet economics isnt discovered. We have banks and etc cuz it would be a long list if i kept nameing them. I say that the demogame and rpg work in tandem and then things wouldnt be slow, quit trying to rush things.
As for the snails pace of the game its good but yet bad. bad because no one has seemed to care enough about the issues and because the leaders seem to have the heads up in the rpg than the demogame. You were elected for the demogame and to lead the departments in the game, not the rpg. Wanna play the rpg and play the demogame? then the demogame comes first rpg second, not the other way around. Good, because we can review our decisions and possibly reverse them before too much damage is done. Maybe along with reforming the constitution we reform the rpg.

It was my orginal attention to do that with the RPG.... follow the game, but when I had my car accident BCLG & Shaitan took over and did their own thing.

Also we have been discussing changing the RPG rules. Also what do you mean reform the const.? Wheren't you against my proposal for changing it?
 
not all the changes but some strider my boy. i didnt completely agree with some of the points :)
 
Again, I ask why we need to hurry the game along?:confused:

If the demogame starts going very fast, people leave because they generally have no idea what is going on. The same problem arises when so many decisions are made at the turn chats.
 
Now i didnt read all of the comments above, because the extra long quoting bugged me. So excuse if i repeat some things here:

a) leaders are elected to lead discussion.
thats their job. their job is not to go with their department as they wish. they MUST decide in the will of citizenry (well, in fact this is also in the constitution itself).
after all, this game is no game of representation, it is in fact a game of democracy.
in fact, their skill should be used to work out the plans they propose(!) to citizenry for implementation.
b) not all can be at the chat
deciding things in the chat is bad. only a few citizens can join the chat, and if things are decided there those people have no reason to stay.
may i recite a comment of the DG1 here:
"what sense does it make to be a citizen? only the leaders decide how the game goes"
this was the reason for many people to leave during the first terms. and the reason to implement rules to ensure citizens are asked.
c) quorums are not bad!
maybe the way we define the is bad. maybe the quick polls are not used enough. but they worked perfect in the last terms of DG1. they work now, if leaders behave
also, you need not set a closure date for a poll. this also helps get them to quorum. and if you plan 1 TC ahead(!) then you have 6 days time to reach it. it worked for many polls already.
if we really need to change the quorum, we could also turn down the rate a bit instead of deleting it.
d) leaders, work MORE!
at the moment, the main problem is that the leaders do no open long term discussion. in fact they even dont open short term discussion except in their department thread.
also, some more advertising of discussions an polls would help. you cant expect citizenry to check your department thread every day. they need to be pointed to discussions and polls.
go to the citizen forum and check how many issues were discussed/polled officially compared to the decissions taken at the chat. the ratio this game is AWFUL. and you wonder why the whole game starts to break apart.
e) why the quorum?
it was develeoped to defend polls of 4 to decide major things. maybe some of us should visit the DG1 forum again and look up what happened in Term1 and 2 of that game. Most of the polls were decided by 4-5 citizens. And most of those decissions were not backed by the mayority of the populace, which lead to many people leaving or pi's.
If this will happen again, i would be the first to leave and i think there would be many following. Then some people would have what they seem to seach for: a game of 6. a pres and a few department heads. No citizens.
f) why is the game so slow?
is it really bad that its so slow? i think no.
why is this? because some leaders dont discuss and because some polls were posted wrong. also some leaders seem to be absent or not taking their jobs serious enough. not because of the quorum.
oh, and of course because the participation seems to go down. but as i recap this is because nobody discussed the issues officially in the citizen forum >-(

this was all for now... i hope i didnt exceed the length thoug.
 
Originally posted by eyrei
Again, I ask why we need to hurry the game along?:confused:

If the demogame starts going very fast, people leave because they generally have no idea what is going on. The same problem arises when so many decisions are made at the turn chats.

Yes, but the same thing is happening now that it is going slow. You are complaining about the RPG taking all of our citizens. The RPG is fast-paced and constantly changing. Where the demogame isn't going no where and isn't doing anything.
 
Dis:

A) And once again I repeat. Leaders can make decisions on their own. Yes, Stuck should have posted that poll, but their was no excuse to stop the T/C just because he forgot to post it. The Citizens & leaders their is perfectly able to handle it by themselves without having to run to their mommies to help them.
 
Also incase your wondering.... Yes the slow game is worst. Where are all of my supporters? Gone. They went to the RPG or left totally.

CP got mad at something with the const. and hasn't been heard from sense. Stuck, BCLG, Ehecatl, Falcon, etc. are all in the RPG.

We need changes.... and I could care less how many people team up against me, but I'm going to fight to get those changes made.... and trust me.... I might be 13, but I am perfectly able to put up a fight against every person in this game.
 
Originally posted by disorganizer
Now i didnt read all of the comments above, because the extra long quoting bugged me. So excuse if i repeat some things here:

a) leaders are elected to lead discussion.
thats their job. their job is not to go with their department as they wish. they MUST decide in the will of citizenry (well, in fact this is also in the constitution itself).
after all, this game is no game of representation, it is in fact a game of democracy.
in fact, their skill should be used to work out the plans they propose(!) to citizenry for implementation.
b) not all can be at the chat
deciding things in the chat is bad. only a few citizens can join the chat, and if things are decided there those people have no reason to stay.
may i recite a comment of the DG1 here:
"what sense does it make to be a citizen? only the leaders decide how the game goes"
this was the reason for many people to leave during the first terms. and the reason to implement rules to ensure citizens are asked.
c) quorums are not bad!
maybe the way we define the is bad. maybe the quick polls are not used enough. but they worked perfect in the last terms of DG1. they work now, if leaders behave
also, you need not set a closure date for a poll. this also helps get them to quorum. and if you plan 1 TC ahead(!) then you have 6 days time to reach it. it worked for many polls already.
if we really need to change the quorum, we could also turn down the rate a bit instead of deleting it.
d) leaders, work MORE!
at the moment, the main problem is that the leaders do no open long term discussion. in fact they even dont open short term discussion except in their department thread.
also, some more advertising of discussions an polls would help. you cant expect citizenry to check your department thread every day. they need to be pointed to discussions and polls.
go to the citizen forum and check how many issues were discussed/polled officially compared to the decissions taken at the chat. the ratio this game is AWFUL. and you wonder why the whole game starts to break apart.
e) why the quorum?
it was develeoped to defend polls of 4 to decide major things. maybe some of us should visit the DG1 forum again and look up what happened in Term1 and 2 of that game. Most of the polls were decided by 4-5 citizens. And most of those decissions were not backed by the mayority of the populace, which lead to many people leaving or pi's.
If this will happen again, i would be the first to leave and i think there would be many following. Then some people would have what they seem to seach for: a game of 6. a pres and a few department heads. No citizens.
f) why is the game so slow?
is it really bad that its so slow? i think no.
why is this? because some leaders dont discuss and because some polls were posted wrong. also some leaders seem to be absent or not taking their jobs serious enough. not because of the quorum.
oh, and of course because the participation seems to go down. but as i recap this is because nobody discussed the issues officially in the citizen forum >-(

this was all for now... i hope i didnt exceed the length thoug.

dis,

Your comments here are right on the mark. I am standing and applauding you from my keyboard right now.

Bill
Chief Justice
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by disorganizer
Now i didnt read all of the comments above, because the extra long quoting bugged me. So excuse if i repeat some things here:

a) leaders are elected to lead discussion.
thats their job. their job is not to go with their department as they wish. they MUST decide in the will of citizenry (well, in fact this is also in the constitution itself).
after all, this game is no game of representation, it is in fact a game of democracy.
in fact, their skill should be used to work out the plans they propose(!) to citizenry for implementation.
b) not all can be at the chat
deciding things in the chat is bad. only a few citizens can join the chat, and if things are decided there those people have no reason to stay.
may i recite a comment of the DG1 here:
"what sense does it make to be a citizen? only the leaders decide how the game goes"
this was the reason for many people to leave during the first terms. and the reason to implement rules to ensure citizens are asked.
c) quorums are not bad!
maybe the way we define the is bad. maybe the quick polls are not used enough. but they worked perfect in the last terms of DG1. they work now, if leaders behave
also, you need not set a closure date for a poll. this also helps get them to quorum. and if you plan 1 TC ahead(!) then you have 6 days time to reach it. it worked for many polls already.
if we really need to change the quorum, we could also turn down the rate a bit instead of deleting it.
d) leaders, work MORE!
at the moment, the main problem is that the leaders do no open long term discussion. in fact they even dont open short term discussion except in their department thread.
also, some more advertising of discussions an polls would help. you cant expect citizenry to check your department thread every day. they need to be pointed to discussions and polls.
go to the citizen forum and check how many issues were discussed/polled officially compared to the decissions taken at the chat. the ratio this game is AWFUL. and you wonder why the whole game starts to break apart.
e) why the quorum?
it was develeoped to defend polls of 4 to decide major things. maybe some of us should visit the DG1 forum again and look up what happened in Term1 and 2 of that game. Most of the polls were decided by 4-5 citizens. And most of those decissions were not backed by the mayority of the populace, which lead to many people leaving or pi's.
If this will happen again, i would be the first to leave and i think there would be many following. Then some people would have what they seem to seach for: a game of 6. a pres and a few department heads. No citizens.
f) why is the game so slow?
is it really bad that its so slow? i think no.
why is this? because some leaders dont discuss and because some polls were posted wrong. also some leaders seem to be absent or not taking their jobs serious enough. not because of the quorum.
oh, and of course because the participation seems to go down. but as i recap this is because nobody discussed the issues officially in the citizen forum >-(

this was all for now... i hope i didnt exceed the length thoug.
[/QUOTE]

A) Dis.... A leader is elected for skill in the area of goverment. We waste that skill having people who has no idea what their doing make the decision.

B) What Citizens? All of the demogame citizens have left or went to the RPG. We only have about 10 who are actually active posters in here (Heck... even shaitan abononed us)

C) The Quorum standard needs to be lowered. Also yes... The way they do define them is bad.

D) No the problem is that we make them do to much. Yes the have a commiment when they take the office, but like every other person in this game they have a life. And we can not expect them to post everything or answer something right then & their.

E) Their is much simplier way then a quorums to solve a poll with only four votes. Back when we had 4 votes deciding major things was when we did not have the poll registry. That has helped alot.
 
Originally posted by Strider
A) Dis.... A leader is elected for skill in the area of goverment. We waste that skill having people who has no idea what their doing make the decision.
[/B]


Strider, who are the people who has no idea what their doing make the decision? Are they the same people who elected the leaders? :confused: :king:
 
Further, if we elect people who supposedly are so much better than us at playing the game, then why don't we just elect one person, who is the best, and let them just play the game....

Afterall, even councilpeople would be getting in the way of that one great player, GreyFox or Shaitan come to mind for me.

The purpose of our rules is to promote involvement in the game by as many citizens as possible, not to promote someone's "career".
 
I think one of the main problems (RPG aside) is the high difficulty. Not all of us are avid Emperor level players. Not all of us know of the strategies for this level. Look at what we have: 3 cities, and an army ready to attack Azteca. If it works, great, but if it doesn't, then what? I don't see any back up plans... I think the reason is the people are scared of this level, and head for the RPG. Not all of the people who voted for emperor level are here. (and it probably was a biased opinion to show off Apolyton)...
 
I think just about everything I could have possible said against Strider's arguements was already said...

Therefore, I stand in complete agreement.

EDIT: I just thought of something...

Strider mentioned a few people who left due to the rules. IIRC, Falc and CP left for RL reasons. As to EA, BCLG, etc., perhaps they would rather not get caught up in these arguements, leaving things like this to the vets of the game.

And, perhaps, we could start a campaign to try to regain the membership of those who left. Sure, they wouldn't check pm's, but CFC gives us the option to email them. For example, I have heard stories of a person named 'Rain,' and how she left after an arguement (I wouldn't know the dtails.) Perhaps, if possible, we could use the e-mail option to contact them, or at least try to.
 
[over-exagurated sarcastic comment]
@strider: so i propose instead of a election setting up a deity game and the best 6 become our ministers and president. the rest then can just watch their game online. or even better: only the best plays out alone and just posts a report?
[/over-exagurated sarcastic comment]

now to be normal again:
the leaders skill should be used to workout a plan and strategies. also with alternatives.
and of course leaders have rl, but they also have a deputy :-) and can even use interested citizens to help.

see dg1:
the military department had a active deputy and also 2 groups working for them. 10 people were discussing the warplans, and the leaders job was then to accumulate the posts in the discussions into a specific warplan and to poll citizenry about it.
perfect example to how it should be (applause for falcon to that thing).

the poll registry itself doesnt help the 4-vote issue.

if you think the polling standards need to be lowered, you can call judicacy for help to get a change mooving. i think an approach to completey remove it wont have many chances (it would surprise me actually if it would be accepted). but a lowering may have.

what other method of determining the quorum would you see? we discussed having an average of the poll-participation, but the workload drove us of that idea.

actually, maybe we need 2 quorums: one for standard decissions and one for rulechanges and position approvals? like the 1/3 quorum also for normal decissions like city placement?

so what i could second is the following approach:
* a 1/3 quorum is needed for all non rulebased and non position based polls. but those polls need to be up at least 48hours.
the option to accept need the mayority of votes (meaning abstain is counted as "no" or "none if the above"!).
* the 1/2 quorum is for rulechanges and position related polls (approval polls, honour polls)

still, those rules need workout but i hope to get the idea over to you. could shaitan or bill workout a good-sounding proposal out of that?

@donsig: could you also live with that as heavy supporter of high quorums?
 
Originally posted by Strider
It's stupid to take the power away from more able people and give it to someone who doesn't have a single clue on how to do anything.

A) Dis.... A leader is elected for skill in the area of goverment. We waste that skill having people who has no idea what their doing make the decision.
This is about as dangerous and wrongheaded as its possible to be in a DEMOCRACY game. Democracy is government of the people, for the people, by the people. I think you need to set up an Oligarchy game.

Originally posted by Strider
B) What Citizens? All of the demogame citizens have left or went to the RPG. We only have about 10 who are actually active posters in here (Heck... even shaitan abononed us)[/B]
No, I didn't. I just no longer actively pore over things looking for the wheat in the chaff. I also don't post when what I want to say has already been said. I subscribe to every department thread, the poll registry and the discussion registry. When issues are posted in those locations I read them and reply, if my views have not already been expressed. I vote in polls that have been registered - I normally do not cruise the poll forum looking for unregistered polls. When people mention important ongoing discussions or polls I will make a special effort to find them. Otherwise, if it's not important enough to be in a govenment thread or at least advertised in the registries then I have no problem with missing it.

Also (and this is very annoying) I've been getting so many site hangs that I've abandoned several posting attempts recently. Sometimes I go back later, more often I don't.
 
@shaitan: what i said is reflected by you. the site outages are our worst problem. i also lost some discussion because i normally use the "unread post" indicator to not miss anything. but if you go to the forum and then are blocked out for 2 hours, all those markers are on "read" so you have to do a manual big effort to find out what you missed. most of the time i just quit and waited for new posts to appear.
 
Originally posted by Strider
"We risk the annilation of are country if we take the power away from people who knows what their doing.... and give it to people who don't have a clue" --George Washington

I'd welcome the chance to see your link for that quote. I've studied Washington a bit and never seen that attributed to him. The mis-spellings and use of the word clue in the sentence as listed is very out of the ordinary for him.

Here is a applicable Washington quote:

"Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: If defective let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence." -George Washington
 
Bill, I think Strider meant George Washington of the once great Los Angeles Rams...
 
Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
Further, if we elect people who supposedly are so much better than us at playing the game, then why don't we just elect one person, who is the best, and let them just play the game....

Afterall, even councilpeople would be getting in the way of that one great player, GreyFox or Shaitan come to mind for me.

The purpose of our rules is to promote involvement in the game by as many citizens as possible, not to promote someone's "career".

Bill.... No one person is good at everything in this game (Maybe Aeson or SirPleb, but I doubt their come to play for us)

In my games I rely on science and military strength. I have lots of high-tech troops. That's what I'm good at. I do not have the patence to check trade deal every couple of turns or the skill or knowledge on how to place cities properly.
 
Originally posted by donsig
[/i]

Strider, who are the people who has no idea what their doing make the decision? Are they the same people who elected the leaders? :confused: :king:

No.... those are the people who sit around and not even post in the citizen registry, but votes in the elections either way.
 
Back
Top Bottom