OFFICIAL DISCUSSION: Terms of Office

[Chieftess]

This is the discussion to determine what the terms of office are. That is, how long a term is, and other issues regarding holding office, like creating discussions and what officials can/can't do.

 

[GenMarshall]

I beleve we should keep the standard month long terms the way we have been doing since day 1 of the demogame.

 

[Provolution]

We still need a law to assure a minimum amount of turns per Term. No-one will ever see SD3's turtle crawl again if they can be without.

 

[Ashburnham]

I agree with Provo. Perhaps we could set a minimum of 5 Turns a week? That seems like a reasonable amount to expect as a minimum. Other than that, I agree that the month-long term system works fine.

 

[Provolution]

Summarized:

1 Month Terms (works just fine)
Minimum 10 turns played per week, or this is more of a PBEM.
Special rule for Term One, minimum 20 turns played per week. Term One is a very slow game for those that want to work on meaningful decisions.

 

[DaveShack]

Summarized:

1 Month Terms (works just fine)
Minimum 10 turns played per week, or this is more of a PBEM.
Special rule for Term One, minimum 20 turns played per week. Term One is a very slow game for those that want to work on meaningful decisions.

If we have good conditional instructions (if we meet someone who has Bronze Working and is willing to let us have it for less than Pottery + Alphabet then trade) then 20 turns a week is doable. What will trip us up is too tactical a focus, meaning instructions based on specific trade terms, movements, failure to give leeway on slider instructions, etc. If we have a more strategic approach (follow the Currency path, don't trade away Iron Working until at least one more civ has it, etc.) then even more than 20 turns a week could be possible.

 

[ravensfire]

Nope - no reason for this.

To be blunt - we learned our lesson. Question our candidates before electing them about things like this. We didn't. Trying to put limits like this only invites problems down the road.

Use peer pressure and the election to get people to play at a pace that most people find acceptable. This isn't a race.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Black_Hole]

Nope - no reason for this.

To be blunt - we learned our lesson. Question our candidates before electing them about things like this. We didn't. Trying to put limits like this only invites problems down the road.

Use peer pressure and the election to get people to play at a pace that most people find acceptable. This isn't a race.

-- Ravensfire

I have to agree here, the only thing set in stone should be 1 month terms otherwise nothing else!!! Elect a DP/President that suits your style dont force it on everyone

 

[blackheart]

Ditto with DS. We don't want a president with hands bound tight do we? The pace is determined by each president's playing style, so don't vote blindly!

 

[DaveShack]

Ditto with DS. We don't want a president with hands bound tight do we? The pace is determined by each president's playing style, so don't vote blindly!

I think you're actually ditto-ing Ravensfire, but I agree too that it shouldn't be a matter of law to have a minimum turns played. I go a little further to say the maximum should be somewhat flexible too.

 

[donsig]

We still need a law to assure a minimum amount of turns per Term. No-one will ever see SD3's turtle crawl again if they can be without.

How about we try basing terms on the number of turns played rather than the calendar? We could say each term is 60 turns long (or whatever).

 

[Provolution]

I actually agree with Donsig, and then we can have a clause of a minimum warning of 10-20 turns prior to next election upon reaching term shifts. However, this require a clause for a minimal progress or impeachment of DP.

 

[GenMarshall]

How about we try basing terms on the number of turns played rather than the calendar? We could say each term is 60 turns long (or whatever).

I am against having the terms based on the turns we have played. This style is apropreate for the Multi Site Demogames but not in a SPDG. The reason I will place on the table are as follows.

1. It can be abused by a power hungry DP/President by playing ony 2 turns each week. This would cause most people to be bored while waiting there chance in the elections, to leave the demogame.

2. As with the above scenario, the Demogame will be laggy that would take up to a year or two to compleate. Thus causing most citizens to be bored with the Demogame and leave.

Having the Terms set on a monthly basis would keep the Power Hungry DP/Presidents at bay while having monthly elections inplace to keep people's interests high while giving them a chance at an office.

 

[truckingpete]

1 month terms are the best I think..But anything is fine with me...As long as we have fun

-TP

 

[Provolution]

Yeah, stick to 1 month terms, as long as eventualities and turn pace is covered in.

 

[DaveShack]

How about we try basing terms on the number of turns played rather than the calendar? We could say each term is 60 turns long (or whatever).

We consider this pretty much every game, and it never seems to go anywhere.

A turn based limit is a negative for the judiciary, who can base the conduct of their business on calendar dates, and either hurry on cases near the end of the month or defer them to the next month. However justice should be speedy anyway, not sure if this is an issue.

For in-game planning, it would give each official incentive to do a good job on their turns instead of trying to get the most turns possible in on their time. On the other hand, it would also incent people to delay the turns they are in office to make it last.

Given the above, I've recommended a compromise before and would like to suggest it yet again. Make the length of the turn 30 days from the start of the term or n turns whichever comes first. Exempt the Judiciary from the turn based limit, making their term of office a calendar month.

Allow people to hold judicial branch offices concurrent with other offices, as long as they step aside for cases which involve their office. To help that along use 5 justices and for any given case the 3 least connected to the case hear it, on a case by case basis.

What does this alternative plan accomplish? It gives us the best of both worlds, giving leaders incentive to have the best quality turns possible but also play them in an expedient manner to get their entire sequence finished in the time allotted.

If we finish more than say 3 days early then hold elections early, if less then we just get extra time for strategic discussions.

Oops -- forgot a major point against anything other than calendar based elections (or for something other depending on your point of view). The people who register just so they can vote in elections and then disappear for a month would be deprived of their ability to stuff ballot boxes...

 

[ravensfire]

Term limits discussion:

Length of terms:
-- Calendar based (1 month)
-- Turn based (x turns)
-- Mixture (Minimum of 1 month or x turns)

Game pace:
-- Require X turns per term

Discussion points:
-- Calendar vs Turn vs Hybrid
-- Minimum pace - how to enforce

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Term length:

Honestly, I'm neutral on this. Either system would work. It would cause some chaos as we'd have to monitor more closely when elections should happen, and track the number of turns played. Doable though.

Pace:
I've seen this proposed in nearly every thread that is even remotely connected to game pace. Not once have I seen any details about this, other than "make it a law that ..." At this point, the idea is a pipe dream with minimal support. This is a matter of personal preference - use debates during elections to find out what pace the candidates like, and base your decision to vote, in part, on that. Uneforceable guidelines like this don't belong in the ruleset.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Good summary.

For simplicity sake, I would suggest we stick with calendar months, no minimum or maximum number of turns. Make the pace of the game an election issue, and require a play session a minimum of every n days.

 

[Cyc]

I agree with both of you.