1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

My Ideas on the Democracy Game

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Citizens' started by Sarevok, Jul 10, 2004.

  1. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    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
     
  2. GenMarshall

    GenMarshall Night Elven Ghost Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,954
    Location:
    New Suramar City, Vekta, United Terran Systems
    Sarevok - I beleve that your views does have merrit in this heated time during the demogame. On your issue of The Turnchats and the Forums I feel a strong connection to. This is one of the most debated topics ever since the days when the turnchats were started in DG1, though I personaly joined in the DG in the closing end of DG1. I do feel that the forums is a place to hold discussions on important topics regarding the game itself. While the Turnchat is a place of watching and discussing amongs the chatters on the going ons in the game and give helpfull advice to the DP.

    On the topic on Powers of the President, I also felt strongly about. The president should be the head of the ministry (and is traditionaly in RL Democracies, Federal Republics, Consitutional Monarchies, etc) and with checks and ballances (also him or herself) should not be able to go "off the wall" and overide the populous.

    Also on the topic in the The Judiciary, I felt that the Judicary was more of a UCourt (University of the Court) where there were more judical reviews to test the Judges. The Judicary had neather a huge amount of processes of CCs nor a quiet time.

    Finaly in Cooperative atmosphere, I feel strongly about this topic since I personaly see other people getting personal with other users. I myself am a forgiving persion, but lately I have seen users use the past against other users. "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 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." said Sarevok. Personal attacks leads to hurt feelings and people leaving the DG. Maybe we should all remember the immortal words what Danke said back in Demogame II, "DemoGame. It's a game. Fun and all that. Play nice."
     
  3. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Excellent post, Sarevok. I can see that you have a very knowledgeable understanding of how the Demogame should work.I sincerely hope that you have not taken anything I've said as an insult. Especially that post I made about you standing on our borders egging for a fight if we "go Noble". That was purely in jest, no harm was meant.

    Your Cooperative Atmosphere is what I have always sought in our Demogames. From my first Cultural Reports, where I tried to unite people (in a background mode) behind an event or movement, through pretty much all the rest of it. The key is the ruleset and if the citizens read it and understand it (and ultimately obey it). If everyone follows the rules, walaa! Cooperative Atmoshere! And all we did was follow the rules. That's the trick. That is why forming a ruleset is so difficult. It's hard to please everyone, and the ones who aren't pleased usually break the rules. That's just the way it is. I have broken a rule or two in my day, just ask eyrei. :mischief:

    I'm hoping that we can all find common ground and move forward in completing the ruleset quickly. This is what will be needed in developing DG5 and recruiting and keeping new members. I hope people will put forth as much effort as you have in moving us in that direction.
     
  4. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Your point about following the rules is right on the money Cyc. And this should be really easy since WE are making the rules. These rules are not imposed upon us from above. WE make the rules. Why can't we follow them? Because we don't put the proper effort into writing them. We are so quick to make a rule to cover a given situation that we don't take the time to think about the rule's implications. A great example is the judicial ruleset we adopted for the last demogame. That ruleset effectively rendered the judiciary useless by not covering some major points (like what happens when a court doesn't complete all it's cases) and by limiting what justices could talk about in public.

    I personally have learned from four demogames that having less rules is better than having more rules. I nice constitution that outlines our general rules is all we need. We had agreed upon tha in DG3. I tried mving forward from there to bring the focus back to the forums in term three. Not only did I fail to do that but I caused us to slide backwards into adopting more and more rules. I've been fighting ever since then to get us back to the point we were at when we started DG3.
     
  5. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Good luck in that fight. Since I have seen in the past few hours that your views are actually not as far from mine as thought, you may get some extra support for that fight ;)
     
  6. Rik Meleet

    Rik Meleet Top predator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    11,977
    Location:
    Nijmegen Netherlands
    Deep down inside we all want the same; we just phrase it differently and fill in parts differently. Now Sarevok has written down pretty much what we want (no real "No - I don't want this" responses), let's make the next step: getting the rules the way we want them to be.
     
  7. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Alright, lets start getting this set up :)
     
  8. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    As I mentioned in another thread we should look at the DGIV constitution article by article (without the other two books) and see if each article is acceptable as is or needs tweaking. Let's use each article as currently written as the current proposal and gradually modify language as needed rather than have three or four people each writing different proposals.
     
  9. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Im merely waiting for a thread to be made... ;)
     
  10. Immortal

    Immortal Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,950
    On principal Sarevok there really isnt anything anyone reasonable could disagree with in your main post. Its those irritating details that cause all the problems. If only a simple solution would just present itself :(

    After donsigs post Ill take this opportunity to drag out my constitution, it includes most of the CoL and CoS in the sentences themselves, all it lacks is definitions for the specifics still being voted o, I never recieved a great deal of feedback, so I figure Ill try again and hope somebody tries another angle:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=1938722&postcount=103
     
  11. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Posting a link often doesn't help -- please just copy it right in so it can be discussed in context.
     
  12. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    What really rendered the judiciary useless was all the pointless JR's driven by a small set of people, especially in the cases where it was obvious even to the requesters of the JRs what the rules in question were meant to say. Nit-picking at the rules is not an effective way to push for change.
     
  13. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I disagree with both your points. First, the best way to get bad rules repealed is to enforce them. Once everyone has to operate under the bad rules it is much easier to form a concensus to change them. It is not good to simply ignore bad rules while enforcing good ones. This sort of thing leads to an atmosphere where the rules as a whole are not taken seriously. Such an atmosphere can easily lead to the authoritarianism that Sarevok is fighting to avoid.

    As for your other point, one BIG problem is that what is obvious to one person is not always obvious to everyone else. (Take the Aztec War in TG3T3. I saw it coming a mile away yet everyone else seems to have been taken completely by surprise!) So I for one would not condemn a citizen for asking for a JR even when the *answer* seems obvious. With a long set of complicated rules, the more *answers* put in the judicial log the better for interpreting what can and cannot be done legally.

    Also, if the JR's truly had an *obvious answer* then why did it take so long to get that answer on the judicial log for everyone to see? Because of the stringent rules the judiciary had to work under. The CC's suffered as well from the rules. I asked for a CC near the end of term one. There was not enough time for it to be handled in term one. I had been elected to the judiciary in term two and so could not act as prosecution unless I relinquished all my judicial responsibilites for the duration of the CC. As there were JR pending that did not have such *obvious answers* I chose to remain on the bench and do my duty. The CC lingered. I volunteered to act as prosecutor in term 3 and later terms but subsequent CJs saw fit to leave the CC in abeyance. The rules gave the CJ this power and there was no check on it other than CCing the CJ. Good luck there. If the CJ can stall a CC against someone else he could certainly stall one against himself!

    No, it was the rules that hindered the judicary inthe last game.
     
  14. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Either way, both of your problems lead to the Idea that the ruleset for DG4 pretty much was garbage. I think it is now our goal to remove that garbage and set-up a much better system.
     
  15. Sarevok

    Sarevok Civ3 Scenario Creator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    8,407
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    I agree, just post the document.
     

Share This Page