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

OFFICIAL DISCUSSION: Government Structure, Branches & Duties

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Citizens' started by Chieftess, Jan 26, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WeaponX

    WeaponX Hound-Dog

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Now it is comments like this that piss me off. Just becasue someone may not be noticed doesn't mean he doesn't read discussions etc. I am a newbie but I have checked out archives, and even though I have a low post count doesn't mean I don't read. Plus DS was an important player in DG5, held some offices and such. Don't judge by what a persons post count or how much you saw them
     
  2. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    haha, I find this rather humourous also. Daveshack is the type of person you notice the minute he posts. He's been in the demogame for awhile now, and already has his own cult of personality built up. There is also a huge differance between reading about something, and experiencing it. Never forget that. Also, prepare to someone who has been on this site for 3 years, I have an extremely low post count. Postcount doesn't mean a single thing, why you brought it up I have no idea.
     
  3. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    These two statements are contradictory. The troubles we have had are when a leader, usually military, wants a governor to build something specific, and the governor refuses to build it. There was one incident, I think during DG4, when the people voted for war but some pacifistic governors posted queues of all cultural buildings as a means of protesting the people's decision.

    I'm actually quite surprised that at least three other people haven't shouted down the idea of the culture leader putting cultural buildings into a governors queue. I've tried for three demogames to add in the ability of departments to set production requirements, and the argument for governors' rights has been very loud, and very popular. I might be mistaken, but thought you were one of the people who said "no quotas". If you're really coming around to the side of strategic planning then welcome to the club and let's get to work. :)

    Here's the problem with getting strategic planning in the traditional system. We can talk about how we would like leaders to lead, but if we don't change the system or put some kind of legality behind a strategic focus, then it will fall on each elected leader to plan strategically. They have to pretty much all go along, because as soon as someone starts polling tactical decisions, those decisions become the will of the people and may either supercede strategic decisions, or provoke a court battle.
     
  4. Admiral8Q

    Admiral8Q Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    509
    Location:
    Prince Edward Island, Canada
    Excuse me, I hate to interupt, but where is the buffett? :hmm:
     
  5. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Sorry, no Continental Breakfast here. I found that out a couple of weeks ago. :D The restaurant is down the hall to the right.
     
  6. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I'm one of the "no quotas" people, and you know how I feel about anyone changing a Governor's posted Instructions. Penalty for each change is loss of a finger.

    But this isn't my arguement, DS. This is you and Strider, who claims he isn't against change as long as nothing changes. I'm not opposed to massive changes, but you ignored my request for detail confirmation in you Alt. Gov. thread, so Ineed to see the details and need to see people grill them for operation before I can accept them. Just wishing we can make massive changes doesn't get it. That's like jumping off a cliff hoping you'll fly. Ya never know, it might work for a while.
     
  7. Admiral8Q

    Admiral8Q Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    509
    Location:
    Prince Edward Island, Canada
    Hmm... Figures, well I'll try it out then.

    By the way, last time I jumped off a cliff, I did indeed fly... that is until I hit the ground. That, I wish to point out, is when I ceased to fly. Now please Cyc, are the prices at the restaurant down the hall fair at all? Or can I claim a tax rebate on it? :cooool:
     
  8. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    :lol: That's my point exactly. Did you record your flight time? :lol:

    The restaurant will rake you. Keep your receipts. And stay away from the coffee...
     
  9. Strider

    Strider In Retrospect

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    8,984
    You said:

    "Everytime two leaders disagree over how a decision should be made, we get a JR and sometimes days or even weeks of discussion. Let's just have the President be the decider."

    I was pointing out that as long as I've remembered, we have never had a JR launched because of leaders disagreeing, nor have we had weeks of discussion about it.

    I've been for giving our leaders more power for a LONG time now, just to point out, back in the first and second demogames the Cultural Minister could over-ride govonors build queues to put in Cultural Buildings, of course it was almost never done, they still had that power.

    *shrug* Democracy is democracy, in either the traditional system or the alternative system we will elect fools every one in awhile. Not much we can do about it.
     
  10. Admiral8Q

    Admiral8Q Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    509
    Location:
    Prince Edward Island, Canada
    Well, no no exactly, but after my head hit the ground, I had some weird dreams :crazyeye:

    Stay away from the coffee? Too late! This radar tower outside of town...

    What a view!!! :mischief: :dubious:
     
  11. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    I was under the impression the body part you go after is a bit more.... personal. :eek: just kidding :lol:

    Yeah, this is an interesting nut to crack.

    If the cliff is tall enough and you have a parachute, hang glider, or other lift generating device, then it's not a problem. Oh wait, we're in prehistory and none of those things have been invented yet. :cry:

    OK, then lets make it as short a cliff as possible and pile up some leaves or feathers. :lol:

    Seriously, although I would like to inject one of the structures from the alternate government thread, there are at least two problems. I don't want to give up because the idea of adding strategy is an important one, which is why I'm trying to find a modification to the existing rules which will accomplish the same thing.

    We have lawyers crawling out of the woodwork even with a simple legal system, which means the rules for one of the alternates would have to be very detailed indeed. I was hoping to get an army of people to work on those detailed rules so we can meet my self-imposed deadline of March. I wasn't miffed at Chieftess for setting March 1 as the date (that's what I would have set myself, about 3 days later), I was miffed that she pretty much knocked me over in doing so. :mad:

    One of the important things to remember about debate is being able to understand the other side of the argument. The other major problem with the proposed alternative structures is that even though they aren't specifically intended to have one set of leaders (tactical) subordinate to the other set (strategic), I'm sure that the result would indeed be a hierarchy. Too many people here are unwilling to defer to someone else. I'm stuck on how to force a gap between strategic and tactical, and leave the tactical people free to operate on their own. Without a means to solve this problem, there are probably too many people who can poke holes in it.

    I haven't given up on fixing the things I see as broken, but can't do it alone either. Does this entice you to pitch in for the forces of change?
     
  12. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    :lol: Not really. I think one of the biggest barriers you face is that the Strategic planners are to voice vague projections from polls and discussions that will probably have to be essentially detailed. Asking citizens to vote on vague plans is a haphazard way of going about things. The people may not know what they are ultimately voting for and when the Strategic planners go into deep left field, they can say, "Well you voted for this! What's wrong now?" And everyone will be right because the poll is basically up for interpretation, because the planners had to be vague. This also put a lot of pressure on the Tactical implimenters. They may be interpreting the vague polls and structures differently than the citizens AND the Strategic planners. :rolleyes:

    That's where you need to focus, as that will be the spark point for most of your problems. Dealing with those problems will be the next area you will have to focus on.
     
  13. YNCS

    YNCS Ex-bubblehead

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,098
    Location:
    -4 GMT
    Cyc has hit on my major objection to the two-tier system of government. Either the Strategy Group (SG) is dictating the Tactical Group's (TG) every move, or the SG gives vague guidance which the TG can interpret however they feel.
     
  14. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    This is why you need to have overlapping management teams with ministries in the traditional structure way, with APPOINTED deputies to implement detailed tasks.
    So all actions within each Dept should be strictly defined. It is doable indeed, but we need strong organizational minds to define the mechanics, not some vague, generic and
    insubstantive guidelines. These organizations will be firm organizational structures with clear rules of engagements for every conceviable situtation and a crystal clear mandate. Without that, we can leave this model altogether. Idealism and democracy jitter will kill this model
     
  15. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    I remember when ministries tried to "overlap" in DG5, it lead to a stepping on of toes. This may be a shock, but you can't predict everything that will happen. Where's the fun if we can already plan what we would do the ENTIRE DG ahead of time?

    The DG5 government system was mediocre, based on something found in real life, so it had to fail horribly :p . This is the point we can try something new, something different, perhaps something better. Even if we fail this will be another experience we can use for DG7. The statuos quo is frankly, not working.

    Here's a radical idea: dispose of government offices altogether and have a direct democracy and rotating jobs. Any citizen can propose a change to any part of the government; each term month each citizen that wants to has his/her roles changed. The roles would just be overseers of a certain area and to gather info and make suggestions. Like a suggestion committe on colonization, city planning, etc. Being a direct democracy would undoubtedly bog us down with some unnecessary obstructions, but C3C is a turnbased game, and we would have all the time needed to reach decisions.
     
  16. YNCS

    YNCS Ex-bubblehead

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,098
    Location:
    -4 GMT
    I don't think that organized anarchy* is a viable way to run anything. It certainly won't work when there's more than two people involved.

    *Yeah, I know, it's an oxymoron.
     
  17. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    Direct democracy =/= organized anarchy, although it is oxymoronic :p

    I am sure we're all (well)educated and civilized (enough) to be able to experiment a direct democracy system. We also have a perfect number base (10-30) to try this system of government. It is not as if we are a bunch of tribalist savages that will backstab and kill at every turn :mischief:. Direct democracy would not would in real life, but I think it has at least a chance here.
     
  18. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    YNCS,, I agree with you 100 %.
     
  19. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Somehow I get the feeling that organized anarchy would soon turn into organized apathy. If there were no government offices, who would be responsible for posting the polls that the perfect democracy voted in? What if no one posted those polls? What if only 1 person had the huevos to do what need to be done? Would that be a dictatorship? What if everyone wanted to post the polls? I think we better stay away from that idea.
    :) I like traditional anarchy better.
     
  20. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    I believe we are all here by choice. No one has forced us to participate in this DG, so I also believe that citizens will take the inititive. Everyone posting a poll would be a problem, but then again, that's already happening with "nonofficial if-masses-support-it-will-stand" polls isn't it?

    Traditional anarchy is so overrated! :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page