GROWing a new Demogame

[DaveShack]

I would like to try a new experiment, which I will call "GROWing a new Demogame". GROW is an acronym which stands for Goals, Reality, Options, Will-do. If enough people are interested in trying this method of getting DG5 organized, it will take a good chunk of time, but if we find agreement on the Goals and Reality, there is a chance we can make it by the time nominations need to be posted. More importantly, the game will be much stronger if we can use a building-up, non confrontational method for getting started.

To start things off, I'll post my GOALS for this demogame. After some responses hopefully a majority will be in agreement -- this part ought to be a slam dunk but it will help a lot later if we all believe that we have common goals. A reasonable target date for finishing on goals is 3 days, if not successful by then, we'll have to go back to the ad-hoc method of arguing over rules, or plan on Sept 1 for a start date.

My goals for DG 5, in no particular order:

• Play a decent game of civ as a group. (Not necessarily a perfect game)
• Maximize the number of citizens for whom at least one aspect of the demogame is fun
• Minimize the number of citizens for whom at least one aspect of the demogame is anti-fun (something that is so un-fun as to be avoided, something which will make someone want to run from the game gagging in disgust)
• Maximize the number of things which are fun for the most people
• Minimize the number of things which are not fun for the most people (we don't want to have any things which are anti-fun!)
• Increase the total amount of trust between participants
• Increase friendship
• Experiment with running a democracy-inspired mock government
• Learn some things about civ that I didn't know before

Let's hear your goals. If you think I'm completely off my rocker for thinking about trying to do it this way, I'm willing to hear that tool

 

[Chieftess]

How about just start from the ground up? Even a basic ruleset will do. DG1 and 2 were like this, and didn't take 2 months to figure out what to do. It's funny, really. 5 months of DG4, and we *STILL* haven't decided how the legal proceedings and such should go. Maybe we should have a basic ruleset right now, and just start noms now (with terms beginning on the 15th of every month instead of the 1st). Yes, I'm getting a little frustrated at the pace of this "game", and several new users told me that they'd rather be playing than spending another month discussing what the proper way to have advisors and vote is.

 

[DaveShack]

How about just start from the ground up?

Good comment, but I tried to just get started on ratifying most of the seemingly uncontested constitution and immediately got hammered on not having enough discussion.

 

[donsig]

How about just start from the ground up? Even a basic ruleset will do. DG1 and 2 were like this, and didn't take 2 months to figure out what to do. It's funny, really. 5 months of DG4, and we *STILL* haven't decided how the legal proceedings and such should go. Maybe we should have a basic ruleset right now, and just start noms now (with terms beginning on the 15th of every month instead of the 1st). Yes, I'm getting a little frustrated at the pace of this "game", and several new users told me that they'd rather be playing than spending another month discussing what the proper way to have advisors and vote is.

CT, we had a fine basic ruleset in place for DG3. It evolved directly from DG1 and DG2. Then I got elected President in term three of DG III. I shook things up a bit and there was a big backlash to have a restrictive ruleset so DG III Term III can't happen again. Even though we now seem to realize that the medicine we chose was worse than the disease we STILL feel we have to set things up so that DG III Term III can never happen again.

You know what, if we'd have gotten over DG III Term III back in DG III Term III not only would we have already been playing DG V but DG IV would have been much more fun.

Rather than spend the rest of this month talking about the rules for DG V let's do some DG III Term III therapy so we can all get over that most horrible bit of demogame history. After that maybe we can take a close hard look at the two unresolved CCs from DG IV.

 

[Sarevok]

You cannot undo the past donsig, that is something ive learned the hard way. T3DG3 will not be forgotten becasue it showed what can happen. As you said, it is the reason for such a restrictive ruleset. I however think that instead of such a ruleset, we should have something more loose and more efficient. Loose meaning we should have a system that allows input and cooperation. If something bad happens durning the game (such as a DG3T3 incident), then we would stop the chat immediately and figure out what to do. There would be a less-conflicting and tense atmosphere here if it was more about rehabilitation of problems rather than total punishment.

Of course, efficiency also means the judiciary. They were the pure example of inefficiency, and that cannot happen again. We need a very swift and effective group to run the judiciary as well as special codes to make it work. Despite my ideas of "looseness", the ruleset should be very clear and precise about what it says, preventing that ridiculous mass of JR's. There needs to be a defined way to deal with problems.

I propose having a system that each person in the DG has 1 chance to be forgiven for minor crimes (playing the save, no support of the people, etc.) in order to let newer players not get sacked instantly for doing something wrong. I propose no such chances however for any of the "elite", or anyone here before DG4. They would by now know the ruleset and what is required. If they make a mistake, they know the rules and should be dealt with quickly and efficently. The only reason I see to give punishment to a new player on their first offence is if it is of very high nature, such as doing things similar to T3DG3.

With that Idea made, perhaps it can not only prevent players from being driven away, but it can possibly create a better atmosphere.

 

[Epimethius]

DG3T3 seems to have been the result of an executive overextending his power. The answer: put in a recall system. That way, if the executive makes an error and irritates the people, *swish* he's out. Simple as that. This is a democracy game, so lets take the decision to the people. Which was the rationale for my direct democracy game, which I am going to rethink and propose again, because I think, were it done right and given a chance, it could be the real solution.

Moderator Action: Please watch your language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sarevok]

DG3T3 seems to have been the result of an executive overextending his power. The answer: put in a recall system. That way, if the executive makes an error and irritates the people, *swish* he's out. Simple as that. This is a democracy game, so lets take the decision to the people. Which was the rationale for my direct democracy game, which I am going to rethink and propose again, because I think, were it done right and given a chance, it could be the real solution.

there should be a way to recall any official in an important position to be recalled if not doing their job or going against the constitution. I would say a breif discussion then a poll. If it is a minister or governor, the president would make a thread asking someone to volunteer to be the successor if they are voted out. If it is the president themselves, Id say put it in the hands of either the MIA or the Moderators.

 

[Rik Meleet]

That is already in place. If an official is charged of a crime and he is found guilty; the citizens get to vote on the punishment. 1 type of punishment is "drop the job" (I don't remember the exact phrase in English).

 

[Sarevok]

That is already in place. If an official is charged of a crime and he is found guilty; the citizens get to vote on the punishment. 1 type of punishment is "drop the job" (I don't remember the exact phrase in English).

Recall or impeach are the words i believe you are looking for. Or possibly resign.

 

[DaveShack]

Ok, we seem to be focusing so far on handling rule breakers. Can someone phrase that as a goal? What do you reallly want to accomplish?

Does being able to fire / sack / impeach / punish "wrongdoers" enhance the game? I could see if we had dozens of people who want the elected positions it would matter, but we're not exactly bursting at the seams with willling volunteers.

 

[donsig]

DG3T3 seems to have been the result of an executive overextending his power. The answer: put in a recall system. That way, if the executive makes an error and irritates the people, *swish* he's out. Simple as that. This is a democracy game, so lets take the decision to the people. Which was the rationale for my direct democracy game, which I am going to rethink and propose again, because I think, were it done right and given a chance, it could be the real solution.

Moderator Action: Please watch your language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

We already have a recall system in place in the form of frequent elections.

I see no point in constructing a recall system that would delay the game everytime the President does something someone doesn't like.

As President during DG3T3 I did not *overextend my power*. Even in DG3 we had a PI/CC process where in an official could have been impeached and removed from office. That is sufficient safeguard. Having done nothing wrong I was not impeached. All I did was anger the chatgoers by not even asking for their advice when confronted with a pop-up window. I did not need their advice since the pop up window was not a surprise and I already had a good idea of the *will of the people* from the forums. This is what really aggravates me about this whole thing. People still call for restrictive rules because I supposedly flounted the *will of the people* in DG3T3 when in reality I upheld[/i] the *will of the people* agianst the vocal chat minority!

No recalls. Let's stick with the impeachment process we already have and try focusing on ways to proactively head off violations.

 

[DaveShack]

All I did was anger the chatgoers by not even asking for their advice when confronted with a pop-up window. I did not need their advice since the pop up window was not a surprise and I already had a good idea of the *will of the people* from the forums. This is what really aggravates me about this whole thing. People still call for restrictive rules because I supposedly flounted the *will of the people* in DG3T3 when in reality I upheld[/i] the *will of the people* agianst the vocal chat minority!

A president or DP in this situation has a choice to make, between keeping people happy, or sticking to personal principles in the face of public outrage.

In my opinion the right way to handle this situation under the rule set which was in force at the time would be to answer the popup according to the instructions if any are given, or via WOTP as evidenced in the forums if any, or via personal decision taking into account chat input. This is what happened, and my full support was behind the decision up to that point.

Then came the choice of making a point about the rules, or keeping people happy. Look at my goals stated in the first post of this thread -- we need to play this one just like you play it in the game -- keep the people happy! How do you keep the people happy when this comes up? Stop play so they won't have anything more to complain about, and let the full citizenry decide how to proceed from that point. Stand on your principle that the forum input counts more than chat input, and put it back into the faces of the people at the chat, by forcing them to abide by a forum decision. What does a President lose by doing this? Maybe the term is a few turns shorter, but the point is to have fun, not to play fast.

Again, what's the goal? Are we in this to have fun? More importantly, are we willing to let the fun of the many be more important than the fun of the few, or of the one? I hope so.

 

[Sarevok]

Ok, we seem to be focusing so far on handling rule breakers. Can someone phrase that as a goal? What do you reallly want to accomplish?

Does being able to fire / sack / impeach / punish "wrongdoers" enhance the game? I could see if we had dozens of people who want the elected positions it would matter, but we're not exactly bursting at the seams with willling volunteers.

A main problem was that the judiciary was inefficuient, and they never got anything done at all. So it is a goal, as one of mine is that we have an efficient Judiicary capable of handling CC's with high speed.

 

[Sarevok]

We already have a recall system in place in the form of frequent elections.

I see no point in constructing a recall system that would delay the game everytime the President does something someone doesn't like.

As President during DG3T3 I did not *overextend my power*. Even in DG3 we had a PI/CC process where in an official could have been impeached and removed from office. That is sufficient safeguard. Having done nothing wrong I was not impeached. All I did was anger the chatgoers by not even asking for their advice when confronted with a pop-up window. I did not need their advice since the pop up window was not a surprise and I already had a good idea of the *will of the people* from the forums. This is what really aggravates me about this whole thing. People still call for restrictive rules because I supposedly flounted the *will of the people* in DG3T3 when in reality I upheld[/i] the *will of the people* agianst the vocal chat minority!

No recalls. Let's stick with the impeachment process we already have and try focusing on ways to proactively head off violations.

The only way I would have handled your situation differently donsig, was that after the Aztecs declared war, I would have immediately stopped the chat to discuss what was going on, and to form a plan to deal with them. that would have ensured that the crisis and CC/ban fest of T3DG3 might never have happened.

 

[Epimethius]

The point of a recall system is to keep the threat of removal over the elected official at all times, which would make him/her more willing to follow the will of the people. Obviously some bugs (delay, proper cause, turnout, etc) would need to be worked out, but it could be used to remove not only wrongdoers but people who just plain suck at their jobs.

EDIT: "suck" is alright, right? I can't really remember what I said in the above post, but I think it was relatively tame, so I'm not sure...

 

[Sarevok]

The point of a recall system is to keep the threat of removal over the elected official at all times, which would make him/her more willing to follow the will of the people. Obviously some bugs (delay, proper cause, turnout, etc) would need to be worked out, but it could be used to remove not only wrongdoers but people who just plain suck at their jobs.

EDIT: "suck" is alright, right? I can't really remember what I said in the above post, but I think it was relatively tame, so I'm not sure...

sounds good to me. Its better than having such a restrictive ruleset.

 

[Falcon02]

Epimethius, I do not see how that is different from the impeachement processes we've had in the past.

Going against the will of the people is a crime in of it self impeachable, and thus would created a PI (or CC whatever ya wanna call 'em) and a public vote on punishment, if that punishment is kicking 'em out, then a new person shall be elected.

It seems the problem is that last game the CC's never happened.... PI's used to take about a week, NOT 5 months...

 

[Epimethius]

Epimethius, I do not see how that is different from the impeachement processes we've had in the past.

Going against the will of the people is a crime in of it self impeachable, and thus would created a PI (or CC whatever ya wanna call 'em) and a public vote on punishment, if that punishment is kicking 'em out, then a new person shall be elected.

It seems the problem is that last game the CC's never happened.... PI's used to take about a week, NOT 5 months...

That process consists of having elected officials go through a long, legal investigation of the official in the name of the people, leading to a delay of game. Just having a poll going between turnchats, in which the people simply vote, would be much more direct and simple. Arguments for and against could be posted, but it would simply be a poll, rather than a never ending court case. The poll would end before the next turnchat, so there would be a new official in time (this means that the polls would have to be started quite soon after them).

 

[DaveShack]

That process consists of having elected officials go through a long, legal investigation of the official in the name of the people, leading to a delay of game. Just having a poll going between turnchats, in which the people simply vote, would be much more direct and simple. Arguments for and against could be posted, but it would simply be a poll, rather than a never ending court case. The poll would end before the next turnchat, so there would be a new official in time (this means that the polls would have to be started quite soon after them).

Well, this is kinda interesting. The basic idea is if a leader does something the people don't like (and it doesn't even have to be illegal) then a recall vote can be called. During the DG4 pregame discussions we talked about something even more drastic -- a vote of no confidence in the administration, which would force early elections of the entire leadership.

 

[DaveShack]

This experiment seems to not be working out like I had hoped. Guess it will just be yet another general discussion thread.

I will stand by my goals though -- maximize fun, and minimize or eliminate anti-fun.