Hurried or Thoughtful Constitution?
- Thread starter Black_Hole
- Start date
Black_Hole said:
I think that's just the problem - there seems to be a faction that purposely doesn't vote or discusses whenever I post discussions or polls. (take a look at the long period of silence). I'm pretty sure if someone else posted the exact same thing, there wouldn't be much fuss about it. Had you wanted to change something, you should've posted it in the discussion threads.
The polls are finished, and we have a general idea of what people want. Let's start putting together that constitution, and voting on those amendments.
How about this?
We vote on Strider's or Daveshack's constitution proposal, as they were the top 2 vote getters, and we work on the other articles of the constitution that we discussed and polled. If we want, we can simply replace the "current" article with the new one later. We've been through demogames before with the constitution still in the works (DG1 and 2). The only thing you really need to know in the demogame is:
1 - The DP (president, or next in CoC) plays the save.
2 - The president, advisors (based on Civ3), and governors are elected every month.
3 - Elected officials post discussions (atleast 24-48 hours), then a poll (atleast 24-48 hours), then the instructions in the TCIT.
Wrinse, wash and repeat. We seem to like making it hard on ourselves.
At anyrate, let's stop bickering and start working.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
Chieftess said:
i voted in your polls, well i abstained in a few because they blobbed lots of issues together...
Also dont forget DG4 in your list
2 & 3 on your list could be changed...
2: advisors arent gonna be based on civ3 advisors if the alternate government is used a bit
3: The whole idea of alternate government is the long term minister does the discussion/polling while the short term minister posts instructions and makes his/her own decisions
Technically CT, the Dp could just do whatever he wanted the first TC, how ever long he wanted it, etc with no constituition. We cant just say we are going on some implied laws until the constitution is done... of course the moderators would find this illegal because of our traditional laws and stop the DP
basically we will have to only use parts of the constitution that our finished, meaning if we dont have an article about turnchats the DP can do what ever he/she pleases, of course someone will file a CC, even though we havent defined CCs
Imagine what would happen if donsig was DP
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
DaveShack said:
I would personally prefer just using the tradational structure, but giving the deputies more "codified," duties.
IE: The Military Deputy is incharge of national defense.
This is also not what I'd call a compromise. It does not fix any of the reasons why I opposed the Alternative Government in the first place. As I'm pretty sure there is going to be some people asking what these are, despite my several posts inside of the alternative government structure, I'll list them here:
* The alternative government does what? Give two people with equal power the right to officially step on eachothers toes? Long-term planning, and short-term planning doesn't do much to sum up anything. I'm seriously hoping that the Alternatives Article E. is just a rough draft of sometype.
* So... our strategic officials plan ahead for what? We have several people who's whole job is to create a plan that can be rendered obsolete by a declaration of war or many other events for that matter. Long-term planning is a must for Culture, Science, and some of Domestic. However, with Military, Foreign Affairs, and the rest it is pointless.
* It is a new government structure. So what does that mean you ask? That means it has not been tested, not only is it new to the new demogamers, but it's new to the older ones also. So only about 3 or 4 people will truely understand it at the start of the demogame, so helping newer players will be a fairly interesting.
* More elected poistions, now this would be a good idea, if we weren't already having problems filling elected poistions. Now many people seem to think that this is how the demogame should be, however, what it should be and what it is is not exactly the same thing and frankly they won't work together.
* More bureaucracy = more fun. Well, we all wish that anyway, because then we'd all be looking for to tax season.
* As I said above, it is untested, and I'll go more deeply into this right now (imagine someone taking a screwdriver to a heart). Now how many of you have ever beta tested a game? Well, if you ever have then I'm sure your know exactly what I'm talking about here. You put the CD in the game crashes... you restart... play for 5 minutes... and it crashes. Now think of this constitution as a beta test for a video game (which is pretty much is), pretty fun right? Not really, heck it would be the equivalent of releasing a video game to the public without a beta test.
* We all know that the Judiciary is inefficient, undemocratic, and overall the best piece of crap we can come up with (We also all know that I haven't liked the concept of the Judiciary sense it was introduced to the demogame). Well, if we were to use this alternative government, I guarantee that there is going to be sometype of toe-stepping. Now, this "toe-stepping" of course goes to the Judiciary to decide on. Now, while our Judiciary spends 3 or 4 days fighting over who has the right to step on the others toes, we have a game to play.
* I spent my time learning how to play this game already, and I have no intention to spend even more time learning how to play the same game. Now, to those of you who currently hates me for ripping into there idea. You must ask yourself, "This is his opinion, not anyone else's." Well, sorry to break it to you, but you better do your best to try and please me, because frankly I'm your loudest opposition, and with a split this close between tradationa/alternative one switch can kill you.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
strider so we should just go with your plan and forget the alternate government narrowly won?
I love that idea
I love that idea
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Black_Hole said:
Glad you think so also, now did you read any of my post? Because if you did, you would know that I listed the reasons why I opposed the alternative government to show Daveshack that he did nothing to create a "compromise."
My purpose was to show that, and your post is not relevent to anything I said.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
yep i read it, and just because you oppose the alternate government and oppose DaveShack's alternate government compromise doesnt mean that we should go with all your wayStrider said:
see right here:
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Black_Hole said:
Wow, amazing. I try to explain it and it still bounces right off. Okay, let me put it much more simply (and rather harshly also). I did not say anything about "going all my way." I said that this compromise was a piece of crap.
If you still have problems understanding it, ask someone else.
Strider said:
I find it extremely difficult to understand that a presumably intelligent person such as yourself does not understand the difference between strategic and tactical.
So, I must assume you do understand the difference but are unwilling to acknowledge that the way we did it in the past is seriously screwed up. We make every decision as if it is the only decision, with no attempt at coordinating a strategy. Civ is called a turn based strategy game for a reason. Real players have a goal in mind, and they perform the little tasks of micromanagement, checking for trades every turn, arranging their forces for battle to get elite wins, engaging other civs in diplomacy, performing espionage, and deciding what to build in order to pursue that strategy. Past demogames have ignored the concept of strategy, or even acted against the stated strategy, by focusing more and more on the tactical aspects of controlling every little move. Sure, we win the game anyway but there isn't a natural, cohesive flow.
Here's what I want to happen. As we learn what our land is like, the available resources, what civ we're playing, starting techs and traits, close-by neighbors, etc., I want to see long term planning.
- Research ourselves, or get our techs via trade?
- Tight build, or optimum?
- Peaceful victory condition, or conquest/domination?
- Regardless of desired victory condition, expand outside our natural borders or try to struggle to a win without capturing any territory?
- Slingshot using philosophy?
- Build wonders? Capture them? Don't worry about them at all?
I really don't care whether it's an alternative government structure or not, what I care about is the type of planning we do. I don't want to see polls deciding if the next tech to research is bronze working or mysticism, without any discussion of why one or the other is the right choice. I don't want to see polls between settlement location A or B without some analysis of whether we're doing a tight build or loose, and analysis of which will be better production. I don't want the slider settings decided in a vacuum, without consideration of whether we're in a better position to self-research or tech trade. I don't want culture as an afterthought in term 3, when we suddenly discover our border towns are flip risks because we still haven't built any temples or libraries.
The alternative proposal is to force strategic planning. I asked you to make a traditional government proposal which does the same thing, and I don't see that happening.
Nod your head if you understand this. I don't expect you to agree, but it would be nice to know if the message is being received, or if it's not just exactly where I'm falling short.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Sorry for my lack of reply, but I've been sick and throwing up the past 2 days. So I'll get straight to the point.
Once again I point out, something that a very intelligent man like yourself, and many others on your side, have said over and over again (Correction.. two things) . The first being "If it's not broke, don't fix it," which is something I agree on, because if you had followed your own adive, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The second one I've repeated several times, as had several others. The problem does not lay with our system, the problem lays with our leaders. Pick good leaders and you solve your problem.
Also, you do understand that forcing people to work together is not going to work out? Espicially when alot of us hate eachother so much?
Once again, a problem with the elected official, not with the system. Your repeating the same point over and over again, and giving me a headache. Next time say it once, and try not to bore your audience.
Why did you not see a traditional government proposal that forces leaders to do strategic planning? Because "forcing" our leaders to do something that they don't want to (or won't agree on) would do nothing more than get the DG forums shut down. Your taking a good idea, and trying to implement it at the wrong time. Ontop of that, the tradational government already has a method to force our leaders to do strategic planning, and that is the elections and voters.
We don't have the people.
We don't have the environment.
We don't have the organization.
We don't have the time.
Maybe next DG, seeing how things go, but THE DG HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS without us having to worry about a completely new system.
DaveShack said:
Once again I point out, something that a very intelligent man like yourself, and many others on your side, have said over and over again (Correction.. two things) . The first being "If it's not broke, don't fix it," which is something I agree on, because if you had followed your own adive, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The second one I've repeated several times, as had several others. The problem does not lay with our system, the problem lays with our leaders. Pick good leaders and you solve your problem.
Also, you do understand that forcing people to work together is not going to work out? Espicially when alot of us hate eachother so much?
Once again, a problem with the elected official, not with the system. Your repeating the same point over and over again, and giving me a headache. Next time say it once, and try not to bore your audience.
The alternative proposal is to force strategic planning. I asked you to make a traditional government proposal which does the same thing, and I don't see that happening.
Nod your head if you understand this. I don't expect you to agree, but it would be nice to know if the message is being received, or if it's not just exactly where I'm falling short.
Why did you not see a traditional government proposal that forces leaders to do strategic planning? Because "forcing" our leaders to do something that they don't want to (or won't agree on) would do nothing more than get the DG forums shut down. Your taking a good idea, and trying to implement it at the wrong time. Ontop of that, the tradational government already has a method to force our leaders to do strategic planning, and that is the elections and voters.
We don't have the people.
We don't have the environment.
We don't have the organization.
We don't have the time.
Maybe next DG, seeing how things go, but THE DG HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS without us having to worry about a completely new system.
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
I have to agree with the first part of this strider, the DG is full of problems, so lets fix one. And that one is that minor things are being polled and long term planning isnt even thought about. It is broken! We are moving up to emperor or demigod, we cant just skip long term planning. We are also moving to Conquests and we don't want to exclude a crowd of people from office.
Our game is changing, so our government should accomodate those changes.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Black_Hole said:
The only thing that is changing our game is conquest, and the alternative government does nothing to help that. Otherwise it is just becoming more difficult.
Tell me, how is that a problem? It has worked for 2 and a half years, with very little problems. The problem, as I said in the above post, IS NOT WITH THE SYSTEM. Once again I'm left wondering if you actually read my post or not.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Strider,
I, and others, believe the current system is broken.
You, and others, believe the current system works fine.
We have opposing views, each thinking the other is wrong.
-- Ravensfire
I, and others, believe the current system is broken.
You, and others, believe the current system works fine.
We have opposing views, each thinking the other is wrong.
-- Ravensfire
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Strider said:
No.
It's been done before, and in other places. You are more than welcome to educate yourself. I've already corrected one of your misperceptions, you can handle the rest.
-- Ravensfire
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
ravensfire said:
You don't have an adequate answer, fine enough.
The whole purpose of the alternative government is to force leaders to partcipate in long term planning. Now, as this is the main focus of the alternative government, I will logically presume that this is what you see is broken with our current system.
However, you seem to be preaching one thing, and doing the opposite. Have you not said that we need to chose our leaders more wisely? Wouldn't doing exactly as you have said, fix the problem without the headaches? As I said above, the tradational government is a proven method of doing exactly what the alternative government proposes. It has been done before with the tradational government, and it can be done again. Just Elect the right leaders.
Ashburnham
King
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 827
Strider said:
Strider said:
You seem to be arguing with yourself, Strider. You say that the Demogame has enough problems already, and then you turn around and state that the current system is fine. There's obviously some sort of disconnect there.
The fact of the matter is that there wouldn't be all these alternative proposals popping up if the system were fine. There's clearly a level of dissatisfaction with the citizens that's bringing these proposals to light. You, yourself, agree that there are problems with the Demogame. Why, then, would we continue to use a system that we all know is flawed?
You've seem to have set yourself up as the bellicose opponent of the "alternative" styles of government. Yet, you've failed to give any clear reasons, and when you try you contridict yourself. I can only conclude that your antagonism towards the new styles stems from a fear of the unknown. It's understandable. As you say, the "traditional" system has been used for over 2 years. A radical shift in the construction of the Demogame is certainly an unnerving prospect. However, the shift must be done. The current system is flawed and is slowly becoming unworkable. You can be against a certain proposal if you really want, but you have to recognize that a change has to happen.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
Ashburnham said:
No disconnect, just someone elses confusion and a lack of understanding.
Ashburnham said:
It is fine, and I've yet to see anyone contradict me on that point, no matter how many people I ask to point out one thing wrong. As I said in a differant thread, our problems do not lay with our rules, it lays with the people who made them. Myself included.
Ashburnham said:
I can say almost the same (or opposite however you look at it) about you.
You've failed to give any clear reasons as to why we should use the alternative government, and you have contradicted yourself several times. As such, I can only conclude that you just want to beable to put your name on something.
I can continue like this for awhile longer, and most likely end up winning also. Also, I have very clear reasons as to why I oppose the alternative government. I've stated them over and over again, and I'll let you re-discover them.
The problem with not having strategic planning is not with the leaders, it is with the voters. Last game we had leaders who wanted to push strategic ideas (two easy examples are CT trying to push currency so we could trade it, Provolution trying to create long term military plans) and they got ignored and flamed respectively. If the constitution says the people only get to vote on strategic items then it will shift the focus in that direction. As long as anyone who wants a nit-picking tactical poll can force one, we'll be mired in polling things in steps instead of thinking more than three turns ahead.
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
DaveShack said:
Well, this is a democracy game, rule by the majority. If the people do not want to plan long-term, then there is not much you can do. However, you seem to have got plenty of focus on long-term planning so far, so instead why not just try keeping the focus on long-term planning with the tradational government, instead of re-working everything to no purpose?
A Citizens Group would be excellent.
