Early judicial elections

[DaveShack]

While the legal stuff turns alot of people off many are turned off by not having an equal voice in the decision making process. The latter really sours a democracy game for me as it did in our last attempt..

That is understandable but it would be helpful if many of us (in particular the two of us but there are others ) would use a less confrontational style when raising issues with the decision making process.

 

[donsig]

I think a lot more people are turned off by having too many/too wordy rules, than by having not enough/not properly written rules.

I agree. Ever since Civ III DG2 I've been advocating less rules. For the upcoming game I've proposed we use a constitution only to start and build rules as we go. I the majority really don't want a lot of rules then there won't be if my proposal is adopted.

I can think of people being turned of by legal wrangling, but it's harder to think of people (at least publicly) complaining about not having a fair voice. People always can have a fair voice...no one limits your ability to post, all you have to do is click the "Post Reply" button! Whether or not people agree/listen to you, well, that's different.

You're right, you won't hear them complain because they just go away.

You are also absolutely right about that reply button. But that doesn't work in the chats, does it?

I'm used to people not agreeing with me and within the context of the democracy game I can certainly abide by the wishes of the majority when they are objectively displayed in the results of a poll forum. I've fought long and hard over the course of several democracy games to keep alive my right (as a non-office holding player) to post a binding poll. Unless I'm allowed to do that then I don't consider myself as having a fair voice. IIRC, I was denied that opportunity last game.

 

[Octavian X]

Do we really need a judiciary to be elected early, before we even have rules to argue about? To me, at least, early judicial elections would be a good way to start off on a bad foot, signaling to ourselves and potential citizens that we value the rules of the game more than we value the Civ game itself (you know, seeing as CFC is a Civilization fansite and all).

I'm not arguing about the necessity of the judiciary - yes, someone needs to fairly enforce the rules - but surely our esteemed moderators are trustworthy enough to keep things in check before the game begins, at which point our new constitution (whatever form it should take) will take effect.

 

[Cyc]

Personally, I was kind of suprsed when I saw this thread. I figured DS was just trying to cause more controversy (or maybe another arguement with donsig...). I don't see a problem with having a Judicial Branch setup early to guide us through these difficult times, it would be new and different. But if the majority of players don't want an early Court, I don't see a problem in not having one either. Both ways are fine.

I still see the same ole crap. Some people resent the Courts, some people see that we need the Courts. To the first group, it doesn't really matter what the Courts can do to help the flow of the game or that there is a good sized group that actually enjoys participating in the legal aspects of our cyberworld. The other group just butt heads with them, bringing up things from the past, in an attempt to show them the Courts are needed.

It's not the Courts that are the problem here. It's the two camps who oppose each other on the principle of the thing. This is so useless. The Courts have been in the Demogame prety much since it's creation. The kicker is the Demogame imitates real life - the farther it evolves, the less the growing group wants to adhere to the governing rules. Social decay. Three cheers!

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I still see the same ole crap. ...........Social decay. Three cheers!

Seconded. It's good to have you back, Cyc.

 

[Nobody]

lol @ donovans signiture

 

[Furius]

I don't think a judiciary is something we need yet... I mean, we don't even have laws yet...

 

[lovingman]

I know this dosen't have to do with elections but,I like your Texas symbol.(I come from Texas)

I did not join the first demogame. While I did lurk the forum from time to time, I chose not to join the game because of all the legal wrangling taking place.

I was considering joining this second incarnation. But, I find this thread proposing that the first thing that needs to be done is to elect a judiciary. Truth be told, it makes me a bit nervous.

Maybe I just don't understand the concept of a "Democracy Game". If it is a community effort to play a game of civ, then great! But, if the idea is to simulate a "civ-style" form of government, well ... Nothing wrong with that, its just that a government simulation really isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Shattered]

i think having a judiciary system to start is (kinda) understandable.. but you have to think.. who controlled law at that stage in human civ? probably the trible leader (or shaman if we pick a civ that starts with mysticism) so i think we should have only one judiciary position untill our civ evolves beyond rocks and 10 turn road construction .. and as for a constitution.. we should have that as an unspoken background agreement untill we actually get *constitution* .. i just kinda see all this being too advanced and well thought of for cavemen and nomads to immediately adhere to and follow unerringly.. but oh well.. these are just my thoughts,
peace,
Shattered

 

[Spud Boy]

I really question the need for a judiciary before the game even starts. When I see arguments like this one, it reminds me why I rarely ever post in the demogames and instead just read the forum.

While I understand the need for the judiciary, I don't see why the forum's built in legal system (the forum rules and moderators) isn't sufficient during the pre-game stage.

 

[Shattered]

thats because we want to cover all aspects of a civilization.. and while i think your right, i still think we need at least *one* seat to at least count for that part of government that has always existed.. the executioner

 

[Furius]

i think having a judiciary system to start is (kinda) understandable.. but you have to think.. who controlled law at that stage in human civ? probably the trible leader (or shaman if we pick a civ that starts with mysticism) so i think we should have only one judiciary position untill our civ evolves beyond rocks and 10 turn road construction .. and as for a constitution.. we should have that as an unspoken background agreement untill we actually get *constitution* .. i just kinda see all this being too advanced and well thought of for cavemen and nomads to immediately adhere to and follow unerringly.. but oh well.. these are just my thoughts,
peace,
Shattered

I see where you are coming from, and I rather appreciate and admire the idea... But at the same time, I don't think we should let people get 'locked out' of the game for realism concerns... After all... Elections wouldn't be allowed untill 'democracy'
And also of course, there are many people for whom the primary goal is to play some civ as a group... So their needs have to be accommodated...

Given those two things, however, I am very much in support of your ideas...

 

[Shattered]

darn.. you got me with the elections wouldnt come until democracy.. but i think i can see past that with this: we would vote on the forum.. but in the game (roleplaying) it would seem like someone taking power and the like... not a tribal election.. though it would have proceded as such in the demogame forums.. yeah.. now im just rambling.. yawn...
peace,
Shattered