Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
At this time we are dicsussing the many articles of the constitution, there have been many arguments I have been in that have become rather heated. So, I am going to post here exactly what I think as people are now altering my views and Ideas to provoke me. So without further ado, Ill post what those ideas are in true form.
I: The Turnchats and the Forums
The Forums are the primary place as to where the game will be discussed and decided. Each minister will hold a discussion concerning what things should be done before posting their instructions for the Turnchats. This is not absolutely mandatory, but it is encouraged amongst the top ministers to the point of neccesity. The main point of the discussions is to spead out opinions on the issues and get a general response as to what is wanted. If neccesary, there should be a poll on the issues. The polls should be mandatory for very specific ideas (city placement, trades, etc.)
When popular ideas are found, and the basis for the instructions are created, then the leaders create their instructions for the Turnchats. The Turnchats are scheduled by the President, who is traditionally the Designated Player (DP) of the turnchats. The turnchats would be quite simply, a place where the instructions of the forum are carried out, and other people in the chatroom listen and discuss plans and things that happpen while the game is being played. There is no true decision made in the chat rooms however, but merely a discussion prelude to the forum discussions.
The only real decisions made in the TC would be concerning if the chat should stop at a certain point. The traditional time-limit of the TC's is 10 turns, but if a major event occurs in the game that is either a possibly serious threat or a crisis issue, then the option should be invoked. There would have to be a very just cause for a stoppage of play, and only for those kinds of major events. The first declaration of war is the most common stoppage of play, as when war comes there must be an immidiate stop to discuss the issue in the forums and for the MD to set up war plans for discussion. Military alliances against us, unless the nation going against us now is not on a weakly protected border would not stop play as we are already mobilized for war.
When it comes to a stoppage of play, there would be a general vote of the attendants of the chat room. Despite how the vote goes, the DP can veto stoppage of play unless more than 50% said to stop play. The DP traditionally will just be playing the game and relaying what has been done to the people in the TC. If an instruction is invalid, then if it is minor (such as a trade or a worker action) the DP can fill in. But if it is of high importance (settler placement), then the DP should start a small scale discussion with the people in the TC about it before choosing what to do. Each minor change to fix invalid instructions would be listed in the summary. Either way, it should be the forum rather than the TC where the events and actions of the game should be decided.
II: Powers of the President
The President is elected to primarily the player of the game, their purpouse is to make sure that the will of the people is fufilled in the playing of the game. The President's goal is to make sure that the people in the forums are the ones making decisions rather than the people in the TC. As I said above, the TC is a place of discussion, not a place of decision. The president must make sure of that, or risk having a aristocracy of the TC's rule the game.
That above is the primary goal of the President. Besides that, they are generally the recognized leader. Despite that, the President should not have any form of power that would allow them to overide the majority decisions of the people. The president should not be allowed any form of power that would allow them to carry out large scale decisions purely on their own judgement, there must be a second voice to their thoughts. This is not meant to discourage the president from participating or deciding matters, but to make sure that the president does not overide a majority decision by the people on the forums.
III: The Judiciary
Though I completely agree with the road the Judiciary is being discussed on, I wish to post my extra points to what is being said as some additional information. The Judiciary should be a place where those who go against the rules of the DG be punished and dealt with. Despite that, rehabilitation should be more important than punishment in the Judiciary at least for the first offense in order to give players a chance to redeem themselves. The cosen punishments of the judiciary would be decided by a poll, as wouuld be the verdict of Guilt or Innocence in whatever crimie is commited. There should be a list of which people have been charged with breaking the rules, in order to know who should know what the rules are and therefore would get a strong punishment for a second offense.
The main point of the Judiciary is to defend the constitution and make sure that the rules of the game are not broken. The rules of the forums naturally fall into the hands of the moderators and they follow whatever procedure they do use. There should be an encouragement to report people for going against the rules rather than not saying anything becasue of personal image. It is every citizens obligation to file a CC if they see the rules being broken. For a CC to be listened to, there must be a direct reference to what rule is being broken, and evidence and a link to a place where the rules were broken. Some evidence is hard to find, so it is not mandatory but still highly encouraged to have rather than the opposite.
IV: Cooperative atmosphere
At the Democracy game, there should be an atmosphere of cooperation and a wish to work out problems. It should also be highly speedy and efficient to work out those problems wherever they arise. There should be cooperation in playing the game rather than situations where citizens choose to fight for prestige and self-image. There should be less of an emphasis on the individual and more on improving the game. Despite that, citizens should be encouraged to share their thoughts on issues and to set up freindly discussions over issues. There is no need for hostile discussions or heated arguments. There should be a general understanding that personal attacks, wether pinting out someones past mistakes or making comments on ones intelligence is not a good thing to do. There can be citing of certain past incidents, but that cannot be used to criticize someone, do that via PM's. There should be the general idea that the discussion is for imporving the game, rather than seeing who has the better point which ultimately means nothing.
There also should be tight control on threads in the forum, almost as if this was the OT forum to make sure threads did not stray too far off topic. It is known all too well that debates go on forever if the two opposing sides are completely opposed. Even if what is debated about is off the threads topis it will continue endlessly nuless stopped by either harsh warnings against going off topic or s simple closing of the thread. If the debate is to continue, they should contiinue via PM or in a thread created by them specifically for that purpouse. Despite that, it should be a good-natured discussion rather than a harsh place where insults are thrown back and forth.
It may be said that some of the things I have posted here contradict greatly with alot I have fought over in discussions, but as I said above debates continue no matter what even if the issue is settled. This is what I really think the Democracy game should have rather than what has been interpreted through my posts.
I ask that responses in this thread be of a positive nature and not personally insulting. I do not want to see any of the insults and issues brought up in here that has caused severe fighting in other threads. If one wants to discuss either mine or another's comments, do with without either insults or an insulting tone of voice. Failure to do so and I will report the post you made at the slightest provocation. Thank you.
- Sarevok
I: The Turnchats and the Forums
The Forums are the primary place as to where the game will be discussed and decided. Each minister will hold a discussion concerning what things should be done before posting their instructions for the Turnchats. This is not absolutely mandatory, but it is encouraged amongst the top ministers to the point of neccesity. The main point of the discussions is to spead out opinions on the issues and get a general response as to what is wanted. If neccesary, there should be a poll on the issues. The polls should be mandatory for very specific ideas (city placement, trades, etc.)
When popular ideas are found, and the basis for the instructions are created, then the leaders create their instructions for the Turnchats. The Turnchats are scheduled by the President, who is traditionally the Designated Player (DP) of the turnchats. The turnchats would be quite simply, a place where the instructions of the forum are carried out, and other people in the chatroom listen and discuss plans and things that happpen while the game is being played. There is no true decision made in the chat rooms however, but merely a discussion prelude to the forum discussions.
The only real decisions made in the TC would be concerning if the chat should stop at a certain point. The traditional time-limit of the TC's is 10 turns, but if a major event occurs in the game that is either a possibly serious threat or a crisis issue, then the option should be invoked. There would have to be a very just cause for a stoppage of play, and only for those kinds of major events. The first declaration of war is the most common stoppage of play, as when war comes there must be an immidiate stop to discuss the issue in the forums and for the MD to set up war plans for discussion. Military alliances against us, unless the nation going against us now is not on a weakly protected border would not stop play as we are already mobilized for war.
When it comes to a stoppage of play, there would be a general vote of the attendants of the chat room. Despite how the vote goes, the DP can veto stoppage of play unless more than 50% said to stop play. The DP traditionally will just be playing the game and relaying what has been done to the people in the TC. If an instruction is invalid, then if it is minor (such as a trade or a worker action) the DP can fill in. But if it is of high importance (settler placement), then the DP should start a small scale discussion with the people in the TC about it before choosing what to do. Each minor change to fix invalid instructions would be listed in the summary. Either way, it should be the forum rather than the TC where the events and actions of the game should be decided.
II: Powers of the President
The President is elected to primarily the player of the game, their purpouse is to make sure that the will of the people is fufilled in the playing of the game. The President's goal is to make sure that the people in the forums are the ones making decisions rather than the people in the TC. As I said above, the TC is a place of discussion, not a place of decision. The president must make sure of that, or risk having a aristocracy of the TC's rule the game.
That above is the primary goal of the President. Besides that, they are generally the recognized leader. Despite that, the President should not have any form of power that would allow them to overide the majority decisions of the people. The president should not be allowed any form of power that would allow them to carry out large scale decisions purely on their own judgement, there must be a second voice to their thoughts. This is not meant to discourage the president from participating or deciding matters, but to make sure that the president does not overide a majority decision by the people on the forums.
III: The Judiciary
Though I completely agree with the road the Judiciary is being discussed on, I wish to post my extra points to what is being said as some additional information. The Judiciary should be a place where those who go against the rules of the DG be punished and dealt with. Despite that, rehabilitation should be more important than punishment in the Judiciary at least for the first offense in order to give players a chance to redeem themselves. The cosen punishments of the judiciary would be decided by a poll, as wouuld be the verdict of Guilt or Innocence in whatever crimie is commited. There should be a list of which people have been charged with breaking the rules, in order to know who should know what the rules are and therefore would get a strong punishment for a second offense.
The main point of the Judiciary is to defend the constitution and make sure that the rules of the game are not broken. The rules of the forums naturally fall into the hands of the moderators and they follow whatever procedure they do use. There should be an encouragement to report people for going against the rules rather than not saying anything becasue of personal image. It is every citizens obligation to file a CC if they see the rules being broken. For a CC to be listened to, there must be a direct reference to what rule is being broken, and evidence and a link to a place where the rules were broken. Some evidence is hard to find, so it is not mandatory but still highly encouraged to have rather than the opposite.
IV: Cooperative atmosphere
At the Democracy game, there should be an atmosphere of cooperation and a wish to work out problems. It should also be highly speedy and efficient to work out those problems wherever they arise. There should be cooperation in playing the game rather than situations where citizens choose to fight for prestige and self-image. There should be less of an emphasis on the individual and more on improving the game. Despite that, citizens should be encouraged to share their thoughts on issues and to set up freindly discussions over issues. There is no need for hostile discussions or heated arguments. There should be a general understanding that personal attacks, wether pinting out someones past mistakes or making comments on ones intelligence is not a good thing to do. There can be citing of certain past incidents, but that cannot be used to criticize someone, do that via PM's. There should be the general idea that the discussion is for imporving the game, rather than seeing who has the better point which ultimately means nothing.
There also should be tight control on threads in the forum, almost as if this was the OT forum to make sure threads did not stray too far off topic. It is known all too well that debates go on forever if the two opposing sides are completely opposed. Even if what is debated about is off the threads topis it will continue endlessly nuless stopped by either harsh warnings against going off topic or s simple closing of the thread. If the debate is to continue, they should contiinue via PM or in a thread created by them specifically for that purpouse. Despite that, it should be a good-natured discussion rather than a harsh place where insults are thrown back and forth.
It may be said that some of the things I have posted here contradict greatly with alot I have fought over in discussions, but as I said above debates continue no matter what even if the issue is settled. This is what I really think the Democracy game should have rather than what has been interpreted through my posts.
I ask that responses in this thread be of a positive nature and not personally insulting. I do not want to see any of the insults and issues brought up in here that has caused severe fighting in other threads. If one wants to discuss either mine or another's comments, do with without either insults or an insulting tone of voice. Failure to do so and I will report the post you made at the slightest provocation. Thank you.
- Sarevok
