Government Structure Run-Off

[Provolution]

Well, the compromise option will be presented as a constitutional amendment proposal, and the runoff between the two leading options will still be subject to a constitutional debate during Term One. Traditional Government set-up or the DS setup may still be contested. However, either of Striders or DS''s proposal would serve well as a base.

 

[Strider]

Well, the compromise option will be presented as a constitutional amendment proposal, and the runoff between the two leading options will still be subject to a constitutional debate during Term One. Traditional Government set-up or the DS setup may still be contested. However, either of Striders or DS''s proposal would serve well as a base.

Not enough time, and not enough support. A large amount of people did not want a compromise. Needless to say, it wouldn't have gotten that far anyway.

 

[Black_Hole]

Not enough time, and not enough support. A large amount of people did not want a compromise. Needless to say, it wouldn't have gotten that far anyway.

hes basically saying that if alternate government doesnt win now, an amendment changing the offices to the alternate goverment style will be pushed through

 

[DaveShack]

Last time I checked, Donsig has not been seen inside of the demogame for several weeks... if not months. So this crap about people who wanted the alternative style pushed for it is false.

Still my point still stands, if we were to chose the alternative government, you will still be building a completely new constitution.

I will abide by my decisions, as I always have, and that is of no concern to you.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first point. All I said was that I wasn't the first person ever to ask for leaders to post information, because I do not take credit for ideas unless they are actually my own. However, your implication that the alternative does not consider a FOIA is completely false. A FOIA was part of the alternative structure as I first proposed it, and it is still a required part of the alternative. There is absolutely no doubt of this, nor is there any doubt that it will be required if the traditional method is chosen.

It's not the whole constitution that has to change if we choose the alternative, there are significant parts which get reused no matter which way we go.

Not sure what you mean about abiding by your decisions -- that's not what I asked, and the way you wrote it implies that your mind is made up, just like you said in previous threads [paraphrase] that you would do everything in your power to destroy the alternative [/paraphrase]. Are you going to go along if the people choose the alternative structure, or is this a threat to engage in virtual terrorism if you lose? If you are considering anything of the sort, a little advance warning, it definitely won't be allowed.

My position remains that no matter the outcome I will be a positive participant in the process. You seem to have forgotton that I started off this whole interregnum period by posting DG5's rules, as amended and updated to account for JRs, as the starting point for DG6 rules. I didn't even post the alternative until some people I had PM'd it to asked whether it was going to be introduced. I could switch back to the traditional horse in about 30 seconds if that was what the people wanted. We were headed for a slam-dunk ratification of the traditional rules (DG5 as amended) with no changes at all.

 

[Strider]

I'm not sure what you mean by the first point. All I said was that I wasn't the first person ever to ask for leaders to post information, because I do not take credit for ideas unless they are actually my own. However, your implication that the alternative does not consider a FOIA is completely false. A FOIA was part of the alternative structure as I first proposed it, and it is still a required part of the alternative. There is absolutely no doubt of this, nor is there any doubt that it will be required if the traditional method is chosen.

You said that the "idea" for the leaders to post information was pushed ahead by alternative strucuture supports. I said that was false, the orginal person to launch a campaign for this was Donsig, and I have seen no efforts, from you or anyone else to do this. The fact that it was completely left out here, is even more support than you or your supporters thought it a minor thing.

It's not the whole constitution that has to change if we choose the alternative, there are significant parts which get reused no matter which way we go.

Not sure what you mean about abiding by your decisions -- that's not what I asked, and the way you wrote it implies that your mind is made up, just like you said in previous threads [paraphrase] that you would do everything in your power to destroy the alternative [/paraphrase]. Are you going to go along if the people choose the alternative structure, or is this a threat to engage in virtual terrorism if you lose? If you are considering anything of the sort, a little advance warning, it definitely won't be allowed.

I abide by my decisions, and I decided long ago that I prefer the Tradational government. I have neither the motivation, will, or knowaledge to deal with the alternative government. I did not create it, I was not one of the minds behind it. As such, I have no right to do anything with it, even if it is making a compromise between the two. It is likely that if the alternative government passes, I will most likely continue my crusade to use the tradational government. If that then fails, then I will have no choice then to leave the game. I do not like the alternative government, and I would rather find something else to do with my time, then to play under rules I hate.

My position remains that no matter the outcome I will be a positive participant in the process. You seem to have forgotton that I started off this whole interregnum period by posting DG5's rules, as amended and updated to account for JRs, as the starting point for DG6 rules. I didn't even post the alternative until some people I had PM'd it to asked whether it was going to be introduced. I could switch back to the traditional horse in about 30 seconds if that was what the people wanted. We were headed for a slam-dunk ratification of the traditional rules (DG5 as amended) with no changes at all.

A partcipant doing what? Tell me, if the tradational government does win, do you have the right to come in suggesting changes? No, unless you were able to read mind over the internet, you have no idea what or why I made something the way I did. Even if I somehow did decide to waste the time explaining it to you, there is so many differant purposes or varaitions for anyone thing, that I doubt I'll be able to explain it justly.

No, you have no more right messing with the tradational government, then I have messing with the alternative government.

 

[DaveShack]

OK, before anyone gets any wrong ideas about this conversation, you're witnessing a debate not a flame war, so put away those extinguishers!

Also, since I've said it 3 times and you don't seem to want to recognize it, maybe larger type will help:
I don't mind if traditional wins, and I plan to be fully involved in the game either way

No, you have no more right messing with the tradational government, then I have messing with the alternative government.

Huh? You copied my DG6 starting point (which was itself modified from DG5), and then made changes to it. Why would it need "messing with"?

You answered what I was asking -- I'm perfectly willing to play by your rules (especially since they are also my rules), but you're not willing to play by mine, and will carry on the fight to overturn the people's decision if you lose. If you are reasonable about it, you're certainly welcome to try, just don't go overboard.

Whatever the people choose, we play. After a while we'll look at the results. If it's a good idea we stick with it, and if it's a bad idea then we fix it.

 

[Strider]

Also, since I've said it 3 times and you don't seem to want to recognize it, maybe larger type will help:
I don't mind if traditional wins, and I plan to be fully involved in the game either way

You may not, but I do. As I said above, I do not like the alternative government, and have no wish to play under it. It is my decision wether I want to or not, regardless of which way the poll goes.

Huh? You copied my DG6 starting point (which was itself modified from DG5), and then made changes to it. Why would it need "messing with"?

You answered what I was asking -- I'm perfectly willing to play by your rules (especially since they are also my rules), but you're not willing to play by mine, and will carry on the fight to overturn the people's decision if you lose. If you are reasonable about it, you're certainly welcome to try, just don't go overboard.

Whatever the people choose, we play. After a while we'll look at the results. If it's a good idea we stick with it, and if it's a bad idea then we fix it.

I didn't copy any "DG6 starting point." I looked at the poll (the one over which constitution we should base DG6's off of), then copied and pasted the DG5 ruleset from the thread in the main forum. I fixed the text alignments and then start making modifications to it.

Am I suppose to be willing to do something I do not want to do? As I've said many times already, I simply do not want to play under the alternative government. I do not like for the reasons I have stated for the pass couple of weeks. Why do you think that I'm willing to play by rules that I don't like?

 

[DaveShack]

Am I suppose to be willing to do something I do not want to do? As I've said many times already, I simply do not want to play under the alternative government. I do not like for the reasons I have stated for the pass couple of weeks. Why do you think that I'm willing to play by rules that I don't like?

If I gave the impression that I wanted to force you to play in the alternative style, please accept my apology. Anyone is free to come and go at will. I would miss your input and would hope for your return.

My concern is allowing the people to play the way they want without interference from others who won't give up on changing things back the way they were. If a majority wants to change back, then we change back, plain and simple, and suggesting it once in a while would be perfectly fine -- but I don't want to see continuous efforts to get it changed, to the detriment of the game.

 

[Strider]

If I gave the impression that I wanted to force you to play in the alternative style, please accept my apology. Anyone is free to come and go at will. I would miss your input and would hope for your return.

My concern is allowing the people to play the way they want without interference from others who won't give up on changing things back the way they were. If a majority wants to change back, then we change back, plain and simple, and suggesting it once in a while would be perfectly fine -- but I don't want to see continuous efforts to get it changed, to the detriment of the game.

What if those continous efforts were always shy one or two supporters? Would you not allow them the ability to try to gain those last couple of votes? Dropping things from memory does nothing except prolong the troubles. If the demogame is split to far down the middle, then it would be much better to resolve the situtation, than to ignore it.

 

[Ashburnham]

Whatever the people choose, we play. After a while we'll look at the results. If it's a good idea we stick with it, and if it's a bad idea then we fix it.

That's really all that needs to be said. All this bickering is needless. Let's just wait to see what the people decide and then move on from there. We've been having the same arguement for the past 2 weeks and nothing has gotten resolved. It's time to let the voters decide and we can continue this discussion when we're looking at how the government is performing in the coming terms.

 

[Octavian X]

It'd be a shame if you did leave just because of the governmental strucuture of the game, Strider. As the last few days have proven, you do bring some vitality to this whole process.

My support for the use of the alternate goverment strucutre remains, really. I've come to view the DG as a grand forum to both participate in an interesting political structure and to better the Civving skills of it's participants. To that the latter end, I truly believe the alternate government strucutre to be the better of the two.

With the traditional government, planning is at the whim of that particular elected leader. A leader could choose to develop plans a few turns or hundreds of turns in the future. Usually, fewer turns were planned for, and I believe our playing of the game suffered as a result. Yes, we won, but we could've done a better job with better planning.

The alternate government, as I see it, uses the strategic layer to actually plan ahead. In CivIII, it's better planning that will almost invariably result in better playing. The strategic layer would have to also use broader strategies for planning. These plans and the strategies behind them would have to be discussed and polled among the people, who will hopefully learn something for bettering their own games.

 

[donsig]

Last time I checked, Donsig has not been seen inside of the demogame for several weeks... if not months. So this crap about people who wanted the alternative style pushed for it is false.

If I'd have thught for a moment anyone would seriously listen to any of my prposals I'd have been right here in the thick of things.

Strider, if you're linking me to the alternative propsal I'm assuming it's because I've harangued for so long about the lack of game information in the forums. That is something that can be accomplished under any government structure. All it takes is enough people (elected or appointed or neither) to post information. It can be done officially or informally or as part of role playing. How it gets posted is not really that important. Until it does get posted regularly the demogame will continue to lose the participation of those of us who (for what ever reason) do not look at the save nor attend the chats.

It's really a demogame *cultural* decision regarding which is more valued, the chat or the forums. The chat has been more valued than the forums since the middle of DG1. Most of us who refrain from attending the chat don't really mind you all having a chat and having a blast so long as you give us a chance to play, too! You don't s we lose interest and drift off to do things that are more fun.

 

[Provolution]

Well, Strider may refuse me to do so, with or without moderator backing. However, some of us would still present a constitutional amendment for Article D and E, within our rights of the Constitutions both Strider and DS has presented as a base. I find it extremely arrogant to reject the compromise group and write us off without a fair chance to consider this solution. Everyone knows that the constiutional government alternative poll
was not polled by good standards, and that many was open to more than one proposal. In a multiple choice poll or a spectrum poll this could have fared very differently, and I am certain more than a third of us think that way. Yet, the extremist
supporters of either the Strider or DS proposal supporters did not want the middle-ground alternative, and wanted a head on head duel of the options, not even trying to bridge the gap with a fair compromise. Many players asked for having the action to post and poll in such a compromise, but fascistically enough, this was vehemently and inconsiderately denied. Still, with the constitutional base in place, we will still see a rematch on the alternate government structure, and after that, we have explored all fair democratic options in this debate, and not before.

 

[Provolution]

Regardless of the outcome of the runoff between the two proposals, I will present this constitutional amendment as a compromise solution. The advantage with this option is that it has more offices than the DS option and less offices than in the Strider option.

Additionally, fields of responsibility has both balance of powers and clear mandates, and is a flexible model regardless of length of turnchats and so on. This model will also reduce the power of the super-ministries Domestic and Military and increase those of the remaining ones through mergers and redistribution of powers. The advantage with this setup to Striders, is that it has a strategic and an operational layer, yet reducing the learning curve from traditional to a new setup, remaining relatively close to traditional and that it fuses offices that should have been merged ages ago.

Another major advantage is that this set-up obliterates the spurious ministry of culture, and makes it Governor responsibilities as well as ministerial responsibilities to maintain cultural integrity of the realm. This set-up also clearly divides the slider from the territorial roles, which creates a deeper clarity of responsibilities in the game.

I will also post a petititon asking for the compromise solution to be reconsidered.

Article D. The Executive Branch
The Executive branch is responsible for determining and implementing the will of the People, and is headed by the President. The President is charged with organizing and monitoring the affairs of the Ministers and Directors, and is also the primary designated player. The President shall take direction from a council of ministers and from other elected and appointed officials via the turnchat instruction thread, including worker actions. The President is also charged with appointing citizens to uncontested elections, the election office, and the Vice President position (including city naming). The President will lead the ministers and provide the overall focus for their strategy planning and take the necessary measures to integrate their planning.

The Vice President is legally responsible for the City Naming Office, Unit Naming Office, Province Naming Office and Geography Naming Office. The Vice President provides summary of every play session for the forums.

Section 1.
Minister of Interior Affairs (Roads, Mining and Agriculture) is legally in charge of planning all long term infrastructure developments, inclusive defensive land improvements, and is also in charge of all Major Wonder construction and enforcing cultural integrity of the nation. Minister of Interior Affairs is also responsible for opening up new territories for colonization as well as setting up new provinces.

Section 2.
Minister of Finance and Science (Slider management policy "Slider Czar", taxmen and scientists, long term research plan for one term), Minister of Finance and research is in charge of all fiscal policies related to sliders and rushes as well as setting up rules for all gold related activities such as upgrades, embassies and other financial actions for one term. Minister of Finance and Research is also responsible for Capital location and Forbidden Capital location, watching corruption levels and finally would be in charge for planning the Space Race builds in case that eventuality occurs.


Section 3.
Minister of Military is in charge of all military land and air units, except settler escorts. In wartime, the Minister of Military would also take control over the Navy. The Minister of Military is responsible for long term strategic planning for the military, which includes force composition, upgrade unit plans, military groupings and organization, rules of engagement, war strategy objectives (target cities) and advocating all military Wonder constructions.

Section 4.
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for all treaties and agreements signed with foreign nations, including trade in resources and science. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade needs to consult the Minister of Finance and Science on all technology transfers and the governors on all resource trades for their approval.

Section 5.
Director of Colonial Office is in charge of all operational scout, settler and military escort movements and the localization of cities as prescribed by the opened territory by the Minister of Interor Affairs. Director of Colonial Office is responsible for city planning per turnchat, and would consider the placement of future borders as well as operationally lead the navy in peacetime. Director of Colonial Office would also become the Director of Intelligence, deciding upon all espionage missions and embassies tasks. Colonial Office is also the nominal governor of non-provincial cities until these are included in a new province.

Section 6.
Director of Labor and Research Office is responsible for all worker movements and actions on an operational level as prescribed by the Minister of Interior Affairs, and is also in charge of deciding on tactical amendments of the Term Science Plan.

Section 7.
Chief of Staff is in charge of all military operation level plans and tactical decisions as prescribed by the strategy objectives and military structure, formations and force composition planned by the Minister of the Military.
In wartime, the Chief of staff would also take control over the Navy.
Finally, the Chief of Staff is responsible for cooperating with the governors in meeting the needed defense requirements as prescribed by the Military Ministers long term plan.

Section 8.
Director of Central Bank is in charge of operating the slider within the scope prescribed by the Minister of Finance and Science, as well as approving and disapproving all gold requests from other Directors and Governors.

 

[Black_Hole]

Regardless of the outcome of the runoff between the two proposals, I will present this constitutional amendment as a compromise solution. The advantage with this option is that it has more offices than the DS option and less offices than in the Strider option.

Additionally, fields of responsibility has both balance of powers and clear mandates, and is a flexible model regardless of length of turnchats and so on. This model will also reduce the power of the super-ministries Domestic and Military and increase those of the remaining ones through mergers and redistribution of powers. The advantage with this setup to Striders, is that it has a strategic and an operational layer, yet reducing the learning curve from traditional to a new setup, remaining relatively close to traditional and that it fuses offices that should have been merged ages ago.

Another major advantage is that this set-up obliterates the spurious ministry of culture, and makes it Governor responsibilities as well as ministerial responsibilities to maintain cultural integrity of the realm. This set-up also clearly divides the slider from the territorial roles, which creates a deeper clarity of responsibilities in the game.

I will also post a petititon asking for the compromise solution to be reconsidered.

isnt this your proposal that lost badly in the first poll?

 

[Provolution]

Lkost badly Blackhole.... Well, posters from both DS and Striders were happy with a compromise. And losing badly 9-8-4 is not a bad loss as such. Only a shift of two-three votes would make this very different, so enough propaganda from you Blackhole. If 2 votes moved from Striders and one vote from DS, it would stand 7-7-7.
Also, the poll was badly flawed, and you know that too, even you pointed it out.
Strider said this was an informational poll. Interestingly enough, only Blackhole, CT and Strider wanted this option out of the loop, where many called for a compromise.

 

[Black_Hole]

Lkost badly Blackhole.... Well, posters from both DS and Striders were happy with a compromise. And losing badly 9-8-4 is not a bad loss as such. Only a shift of two-three votes would make this very different, so enough propaganda from you Blackhole. If 2 votes moved from Striders and one vote from DS, it would stand 7-7-7.
Also, the poll was badly flawed, and you know that too, even you pointed it out.
Strider said this was an informational poll. Interestingly enough, only Blackhole, CT and Strider wanted this option out of the loop, where many called for a compromise.

but those 3 votes didnt shift...
plus you got half of either of the top 2 options. I dont think we plan on doing a compromise...
Its not really propoganda provolution, your government lost.....

 

[Provolution]

Let us see how this works out Blackhole, let the compromise run its course, if it works, fair enough, if it fails fair enough. But I refuse to let the flawed poll without multiple options work out. You even questioned the poll yourself.

 

[Black_Hole]

Let us see how this works out Blackhole, let the compromise run its course, if it works, fair enough, if it fails fair enough. But I refuse to let the flawed poll without multiple options work out. You even questioned the poll yourself.

i questioned the poll because it had too many options

 

[Strider]

If I'd have thught for a moment anyone would seriously listen to any of my prposals I'd have been right here in the thick of things.

I know you've complained in the pass about this being a "turnchat only" game. Although I disagreed with you on that aspect, I do see the logic of forcing leaders to post information for the citizens. If information was more easily accessible, it will decrease the time needed to actually "play" the game for your standard citizen, and (hopefully) increase the amount of citizens who actively partcipate. Not only that, but with the switch to conquests information will be almost impossible to get for several citizens.

If you noticed, alot of things that I've inside of my constitutional proposal embraces ideas that I've opposed often. Trust me, this is not a change of mind. For once I'm (shockingly) trying to aid demogame instead of my side of it, well up to a point anyway. I refuse to see 2 years of trial and error go down the drain, because we want a chance to rearrange our bedroom.

Strider, if you're linking me to the alternative propsal I'm assuming it's because I've harangued for so long about the lack of game information in the forums. That is something that can be accomplished under any government structure. All it takes is enough people (elected or appointed or neither) to post information. It can be done officially or informally or as part of role playing. How it gets posted is not really that important. Until it does get posted regularly the demogame will continue to lose the participation of those of us who (for what ever reason) do not look at the save nor attend the chats.

I'm not linking you to the alternative government, Daveshack was just saying that it was the alternative government supporters who pushed for more information, rather than yourself.

It's really a demogame *cultural* decision regarding which is more valued, the chat or the forums. The chat has been more valued than the forums since the middle of DG1. Most of us who refrain from attending the chat don't really mind you all having a chat and having a blast so long as you give us a chance to play, too! You don't s we lose interest and drift off to do things that are more fun.

I have attended a chat (fully anyway) sense about DG3. I lost interest in them about the same time that Ehecatl_Atzin, Zarn, and many others stopped coming. They use to be a "blast" (and maybe still are for some), but I lost interest in them long ago.