Government Structure (Strider's/Daveshack's proposal)

[YNCS]

When are we going to get a clue?????

Hopefully, by the end of the first term.

 

[Black_Hole]

The origanal designers of the demogame never intended for there to be months worth of discussions.

i am also not shur the founder believed in one person choosing the democracy game government. CT, you could have posted a simple poll!!

Beyond that CT, shouldnt we have a cool down period in between games?

I gave you 2 full months to make a ruleset, I gave plenty of discussion and polls.

You gave us? So its not our right to discuss the ruleset and vote on it before the game? The discusssions and polls you gave were pathetic. The discusssions had 2 sentences at the top and they were used to decide on lots of issues. The polls you gave us were multiple choice and squished together 6 different decisions

You didn't give us anything, it was just taken away.

I'm not about to let the demogame die because a vocal few doesn't like what everyone else thinks.

First off change "demo" to "dictator"
And do you honestly believe the dictator game would have died if we waited another month, to finish what we started?

This will completely confuse the noobs...
Plus, CT if you are really going all out to get this game started by March 1st, you should have the forums up soon...

You have completely taken away my want to play, I think Ill just sit on the sidelines with DZ

edit: CT, a question, did you get permission from the other mods to decide on our most important government issue? or did you just decide by yourself?

 

[Chieftess]

Yes, I'm working on the new forum right now. And with your attitude, how about I just let this game sink into more beuracracy? I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy to argue and debate months on end while everyone begins to lose interest.

 

[Black_Hole]

Yes, I'm working on the new forum right now. And with your attitude, how about I just let this game sink into more beuracracy? I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy to argue and debate months on end while everyone begins to lose interest.

all i would have wanted was another 15 days, we cant complete the constitution on time, so its not worth it to me trying
also CT beuracracy is when there is an overpowering, complicated, non citizen involved government, it looks like someone deciding the democracy for everyone

could you also answer this question CT:

edit: CT, a question, did you get permission from the other mods to decide on our most important government issue? or did you just decide by yourself?

 

[MOTH]

I applaud Chieftess's decision here. The bickering and filibustering was going to continue forever. An executive decision needed to be made to keep things going. In my opinion this is much better than issuing bans based on the info in the posts. There was no constructive discussion going on. She is merely moving forward a proposal already supported by a poll with a plurality.

Black_Hole,
I suggest that you take your question up via PM (whether to CT or the other mods). You are questioning, discussing, and arguing about a moderator action. This is clearly not allowed according to the forum rules. Technically, I guess I am breaking that rule a bit here too...

 

[Chieftess]

Look back at DG1 and 2. We dicussed and voted on the constitution as the game was moving along. The important stuff like government positions, nomination cycle, and discussions/polls were up. This is why they call new articles amendments, because you can amend the constitution as you play. Take a look at real life - the US is still amending the constitution. The fact is, there are several vocal groups here who want things their way. In the past, this led to bickering, and fighting. This thread was supposed to be for a compremise. There was no real action on a compremise, but only more bickering. This is the very thing that drives some people away. If you really want to argue over rulesets, go find the Model Parliament forum. Besides, if we keep arguing too long, then before we know it, Civ4 will be right around the corner, and there'll be some arguing that we should move there. I'm not about to let that happen.

 

[Black_Hole]

I applaud Chieftess's decision here. The bickering and filibustering was going to continue forever. An executive decision needed to be made to keep things going. In my opinion this is much better than issuing bans based on the info in the posts. There was no constructive discussion going on. She is merely moving forward a proposal already supported by a poll with a plurality.

Black_Hole,
I suggest that you take your question up via PM (whether to CT or the other mods). You are questioning, discussing, and arguing about a moderator action. This is clearly not allowed according to the forum rules. Technically, I guess I am breaking that rule a bit here too...

I know the rules...
Even though it is against the rules for me to discuss a moderator action, there is no rule letting CT choose decisions in a democracygame

she isnt moving forward what was voted for, we voted for this game to be an alternate government, chieftess chooses only 2 terms will be alternate government. we should have a poll after 2 terms if we want to continue, i wouldnt mind if she was just enforcing the plurarily of the poll, but she defined it her way and used a Moderator Action: tag to enforece it

the orginial reason moderators were put in charge of forums, was to enforce forum rules, not enforce democracygame rules, not choose decisions that should require a poll

 

[Chieftess]

In any game, you have referees. Moderators are like referees. This bickering and filibustering constitutes a "delay of game". Moderators are here to help everyone, not to please a certain group of people.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I applaud Chieftess's decision here. The bickering and filibustering was going to continue forever. An executive decision needed to be made to keep things going. In my opinion this is much better than issuing bans based on the info in the posts. There was no constructive discussion going on. She is merely moving forward a proposal already supported by a poll with a plurality.

Black_Hole,
I suggest that you take your question up via PM (whether to CT or the other mods). You are questioning, discussing, and arguing about a moderator action. This is clearly not allowed according to the forum rules. Technically, I guess I am breaking that rule a bit here too...

I am shocked and appalled that you would gladly hand the very Constitution of our government over to the moderators. As a former DG mod myself, I only put myself above the game at one time and that was to try to correct an error in my own judgment. You will see no such action here.

If people are too lazy to throw together a ruleset, then maybe this game really isn't worth playing. Civ 4 isn't that far off, and maybe we can have our stuff together by that point. The way it's currently going, I suggest we move this debacle to the Succession Games forum. I think CT runs that one as well, so it should be a smooth transition.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

In any game, you have referees. Moderators are like referees. This bickering and filibustering constitutes a "delay of game". Moderators are here to help everyone, not to please a certain group of people.

A referee does not put themselves above the game they are "watching", CT. The fact that you do not get this is why a "certain group of people" will always be vigilant of your actions for as long as you continue to ignore this most basic of principles. You are really helping no one.

Nice football references though. Tell you what --- can we take the 10 yard penalty instand of handing you our Constitution on a platter?

 

[Strider]

This is the kind of thing that could potentially be argued on for months, and STILL not get hammered out. In fact, this very idea's been floating around for months. From the looks of things, there isn't even much discussion on the issue. The constitution is supposed to be by the people, but instead it's being decided by a few people. Because we can't seem to get anything going on this (and it's been 3 days -- it's reached the limit), this is what I'm going to do:

Moderator Action:

We will use the Alternate Government on a trial basis for 2 terms to see how it works, then we'll switch over to the traditional government for the duration of the game. If we like the alternate government, then we can use that as a basis for future games. I think the reason there's so much angst is that it's a change from what the demogame was designed for. We'll use the first 2 months as an experiment phase. Think of it as different government forms in Civ3. The rest of the constitution can remain the same. The only difference is a few offices between the 2 choices.


I know there will be those who hate this decision, but there'll be those who hate going one way or the other, or no decision at all. The fact is that we can't go on for months debating what roles people should take, and spend more time debating than playing the actual game. It's like debating something that you aren't even going to get to do. So, we'll go ahead with 2 months of Daveshack's plan, then Strider's plan for the government, then we can vote on which ones we like.

Now, let's start voting on the other amendments to the constitution.

CT... you just made a bad situtation worst. People don't react very kindly to being froced to do anything, and even more so when it contains something they don't like. With the way it is right now, we are going to be fighting over our laws the first two terms, rather than actually playing the game. You will achieve nothing, but the opposite of what you wanted by doing this. Please, take this decision back.

i am also not shur the founder believed in one person choosing the democracy game government. CT, you could have posted a simple poll!!

Beyond that CT, shouldnt we have a cool down period in between games?

This is so pathic and mis-informed that it actually made me laugh. Incase you forgot CT was a founder of the Civ3 Demogame. She was there when the game was created, your doing nothing else but proving me correct. You are useless, complaining instead of taking action.

-------------------

It is as simple as this, we need another month to make the rules. Starting the game when the rules are not complete will do nothing more than taking the fighting into the game itself. Instead of discussing where to place our next settler, we will still be fighting over the rules. There is nothing you can do about it CT, short of banning every single person inside of the demogame, the only reasonable and logical choice is to give us another month. Either that or were likely to take that month wether you like it or not.

If we do get another month, we need to use it instead of waste our time on pointless discussions and half-assed compromises. Screw the damn timetables, they do nothing but waste our time making them. There seems to be no clear leader organizing anything this time, and that is where all of our confusion is stemming from.

Expect a poll over which constitution we should us shortly after this post.

 

[Black_Hole]

CT... you just made a bad situtation worst. People don't react very kindly to being froced to do anything, and even more so when it contains something they don't like. With the way it is right now, we are going to be fighting over our laws the first two terms, rather than actually playing the game. You will achieve nothing, but the opposite of what you wanted by doing this. Please, take this decision back.



This is so pathic and mis-informed that it actually made me laugh. Incase you forgot CT was a founder of the Civ3 Demogame. She was there when the game was created, your doing nothing else but proving me correct. You are useless, complaining instead of taking action.

-------------------

It is as simple as this, we need another month to make the rules. Starting the game when the rules are not complete will do nothing more than taking the fighting into the game itself. Instead of discussing where to place our next settler, we will still be fighting over the rules. There is nothing you can do about it CT, short of banning every single person inside of the demogame, the only reasonable and logical choice is to give us another month. Either that or were likely to take that month wether you like it or not.

If we do get another month, we need to use it instead of waste our time on pointless discussions and half-assed compromises. Screw the damn timetables, they do nothing but waste our time making them. There seems to be no clear leader organizing anything this time, and that is where all of our confusion is stemming from.

Expect a poll over which constitution we should us shortly after this post.

sorry, i didnt know CT created the demogame by herself

 

[Ashburnham]

I, for one, applaud CT's decision. For too long has the Game of Democracy been bogged down in things like "discussion" and "opinions". What we need is a strong hand to lead us; and Chieftess is that hand. I look forward to seeing what civilization the moderators choose for us to play, seeing moderator-appointed Ministers and Justices, and watching moderator-run Turnchats. Truly, this is a brave new era for the Demogame.

And here I was, worried that we'd have to come to a decision ourselves. How silly of me.

 

[Black_Hole]

I, for one, applaud CT's decision. For too long has the Game of Democracy been bogged down in things like "discussion" and "opinions". What we need is a strong hand to lead us; and Chieftess is that hand. I look forward to seeing what civilization the moderators choose for us to play, seeing moderator-appointed Ministers and Justices, and watching moderator-run Turnchats. Truly, this is a brave new era for the Demogame.

And here I was, worried that we'd have to come to a decision ourselves. How silly of me.

Thats the best thing I have read for weeks

 

[Chieftess]

Ok, look, Strider put up a poll. If that poll isn't decisive by the nominations (atleast the 23rd), then we'll have to pick something.

 

[YNCS]

Children, play nice.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I was reading through the two main proposals by DaveShack and Strider. You both put great effort into this and I appreciate it. I will say that I am generally opposed to rule sets that force the President to be dictated to by the cabinet. I think if it comes down to disagreement, then the President should have the ability to resolve the issue, and not have his/her leadership undermined.

But to the bigger picture, I was around right at the beginning of DG1. Back then we had equally detailed discussions about rules, and one of our great early leaders set about writing an incredibly detailed rule set. There were long debates about very mundane things (and lest you think I am throwing stones, trust me when I say I myself was kneedeep in rule discussions for much of my DG experience). Yet, despite all that work, there was always a loop hole, always a new PI on the horizon, and as game after game passed, animosity from the past seemed to influence decisions of the present.

I am not the arbiter of this, but I do feel the original intend of the demogame was to set up a fun environment where folks could group play a game together via a forum, debating and discussing strategies of the game. Over time many folks joined who were very interested in the debate of the government structure itself as well, and in effect there were two games going at once (and in some cases three, as DG2 had a huge RPG game in progress, that sometimes dwarfed the actual game in progress).

So what does all of this rambling mean? Basically we need to decide if we are playing this game to play CivIII together in a controlled environment, or are we more interested in the rule aspects of setting up a government. Yes, you can do a little of both, but one has to have priority over the other. Having been myself a rule chaser in the past, I would recommend getting back to enjoying a game of Civ together, though I certainly understand and respect those that disagree.

 

[YNCS]

Basically we need to decide if we are playing this game to play CivIII together in a controlled environment, or are we more interested in the rule aspects of setting up a government. Yes, you can do a little of both, but one has to have priority over the other. Having been myself a rule chaser in the past, I would recommend getting back to enjoying a game of Civ together, though I certainly understand and respect those that disagree.

I realize that most of the people here have been interacting with each other for at least one DG, if not longer. I also understand that there are animosities going back at least as long.

Quite frankly, I just want to play CIV with a group of other people. I don't really care about the minutiæ of the government, although as a bureaucrat in RL I know that without rules any organization larger than one person will ultimately fail. I'm willing to put up with the bureaucratic wrangling in order to play CIV this way, but it's not the important thing. Playing the game is the important thing!

 

[Provolution]

The problem,even if you bury the hatchet, the same posse of wannabee Nemesis players will hound you and bark at you habitually. Why so? The personal projection of past memories serves as a natural target, and if a personal cognitive platform is not capable of constructive thinking, all what is left is the primal hunting instincts.

Does it help to evade the past? No I do not think so.

 

[YNCS]

I understand that.