Increasing the length of the terms

[Homie]

I want to increase the length of the term. I felt as if the elections was just over, then all of a sudden there are new elections

So I want the terms to last longer, for several reasons:

1.The game will run more efficiently with longer terms. There will be less clutter, the citizens would not have to update themselves as often, which will draw a lot more citizens to Phoenitica.

I think that a lot of citizens that are not on the forum every day would agree with me on the longer terms. I don't know exactly how much longer they would be, but at least twice as long. It will make election time more exiting. Would the WC (not the ****ter but the football World Cup) be as exiting if it was held twice a year, I think not.

Please vote yes for longer terms.

Also check out my vote for proposition numbers in the polls registry - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26116

Btw: You do not have to agree with "at least twice as long" terms to vote yes. You just have to agree that we need longer terms. Please post suggestions on what would be the optimal length of a term

 

[Cyc]

I would suggest that you run for a government position and then work it for a month. This might give you some ideas on just how long the terms should be, Homie.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
I would suggest that you run for a government position and then work it for a month. This might give you some ideas on just how long the terms should be, Homie.

Where you stand depends on where you sit. It was a long month for me.

I think a month between elections is good but now we're talking about cyclical elections for the cabinet, governors and judicial offices. If we do this thats 3 elections a month which seems like too much. Also, the chats are now marathons just to get 10 turns in. I once brought up the idea of basing terms on a set number of turns played in the Civ 3 game rather than the calender month. I still think that's a good idea. Nominations would then start on a given game year (say 1575 AD for example) and the chat would have to stop there. Then elections could be held on 1600 AD (or something) and that chat would end, etc.

 

[Shaitan]

This should really be a discussion before it's a poll. Or are you just looking to see if there's enough support to make it worth discussing?

 

[Shaitan]

This poll should be advertised in the poll registry to increase participation.

 

[Paalikles]

Originally posted by donsig


Where you stand depends on where you sit. It was a long month for me.

I think a month between elections is good but now we're talking about cyclical elections for the cabinet, governors and judicial offices. If we do this thats 3 elections a month which seems like too much. Also, the chats are now marathons just to get 10 turns in. I once brought up the idea of basing terms on a set number of turns played in the Civ 3 game rather than the calender month. I still think that's a good idea. Nominations would then start on a given game year (say 1575 AD for example) and the chat would have to stop there. Then elections could be held on 1600 AD (or something) and that chat would end, etc.

I think I would have voted for donsig's suggestion.
After all we have experienced LONG chats, and we can all see that the demogame-foras are cluttered.
However, I am not saying that today's terms don't work, but perhaps we can attract more active citizens/players to the game with "different" terms - whether they'll be longer, shorter or based on turns, years etc.

 

[Homie]

Originally posted by Shaitan
This should really be a discussion before it's a poll. Or are you just looking to see if there's enough support to make it worth discussing?

Yes I am.

 

[Homie]

Donsig, I liked your suggestion. I would like to add it to the poll but I can not edit it. I do not have the permission.
Maybe I should ask the duke to do it.

 

[Shaitan]

I recommend against changing a poll after it's been busy so long. Adding an option now invalidates the 10 polls that have been cast so far. Also, a particular option doesn't fit well with a Yes/No poll.

I'd recommend making this a discussion thread and then polling after you've got several suggestions to choose from.

 

[donsig]

I agree that it's not good to change polls - even informational one's such as this.

Since the poll was started to se if discussion of the subject was merited why don't we just discuss the idea here or start a discussion thread in the citizen sub-forum and link to it?

 

[Homie]

I have withdrawn my request that I posted in Needed Stuff for editing the poll.

Do the citizen sub-forum have more activity
(more people surf there), in that case we should open a discussion thread there and maybe a link to this thread. But if that is not the case then I see no reason to open an extra thread, we could just discuss it in this thread. Then we could hold an official poll(I don't know who has the authority to do this, moderators, elected officials or even ordinary citizens, don't know??)

 

[Shaitan]

Yeah, there's a lot more activity in the Citizen sub-forum. People generally only check out a poll once. They'll go back to a discussion when it tops the list.

I don't know who has the authority to do this, moderators, elected officials or even ordinary citizens, don't know??

Anybody can post the citizen approval poll. Under the current rules a department leader would need to also post a Council Vote. That will be changed very soon though and a Council Vote will no longer be necessary.

 

[Zur]

Shorter terms will allow more chances for people to run for office.

Edit:
Argh, my edit didn't get through earlier...meant to say "short" instead of "shorter".

 

[Chieftess]

But would really clutter the threads with polls. Every other week would be the elections (if it were a 2 week term)...

 

[Falcon02]

I say 1 month is good, no more no less, except..... If we went with the # of in-game Turns based terms. It would add some complexity (keeping track of turns, not just the calender), but wouldn't be much and would be pretty good.