OT: Proposals for next Demo Game

[cassembler]

Hey guys, this is the first democracy game I've ever joined... Joined today actually. It seems to me, from what I can tell, that I can't tell what's going on.

So I'd like to list what I was expecting, and perhaps some of you seasoned vets can explain to me how it really works, or why it already does (or doesn't) work this way.

How I imagined it:

1) A pool of citizens form and "registers to vote." Each has the following rights:
-To vote in any public poll
-To discuss anything _legal_ (no spoilers) (in appropriate forum/thread/etc)
-To form unions (no legal power, but can represent/mobilize common voices more effectively.)

2) Polls come in the following types:
-Election polls (Constitutional, public, binding: officials are only elected this way)
-Policy polls (Constitutional, public, binding: Any change to the constitution must be made this way)
-Opinion polls (Adviser posted, public, non-binding: merely the citizens telling advisers what they'd like to see)
-Judgment polls (Judicially posted, public, binding: only for impeaching the Commander for not adhering to adviser's instructions, or to administer justice from gross abuse/neglect by an official, admin, or citizen.)

3) Official's positions are of the following flavor:
-Commander: The ONLY one who executes any gameplay, must follow adviser orders or risk impeachment. If an adviser cannot attend gameplay, Commander has final say beyond reasonable instructions left by said adviser.
-Advisers: Advise the Commander within the scope of their office. Their decision is theirs alone, but they are free to post opinion polls to help the decision-making process.
-Judicial: Permanently held, from the start of the game, by a citizen (or citizens) who abstain from any other public office for entire game. They alone can post impeachment and policy polls.

4) Structured time scale
-Each Commander reigns for X weeks. Can run for additional terms.
-Each Adviser reigns for X weeks. Can run for additional terms.
-Each Justice is elected before the game begins. They can vote as a normal citizen, and have judicial powers granted by the constitution. They cannot run for any other office for entire game.
-Each citizen is free to run for any office, unionize other citizens, and discuss/ propose/ whatever they'd like to, legally.
-Each calendar week has the following structure:
Days 1,2,3: Discussion and planning.
Day 4: Official Polls must be posted (Election, Policy, Judicial)
Day 6: Polls close, all advisors must have any binding instructions to the Commander. (Any instructions edited after or not posted by, say, midnight can be voided by Commander)
Day 7: Game play.
*Election polls should probably close after game day, on day 1.


5) Clearly organized forum
-One sub-forum for citizens and general discussion (Stickies: unions and a moderator ReadMe)
-One sub-forum for Official Polls (Election, Policy, and Judgment polls)
-One sub-forum for each Adviser, and the Commander to post opinion polls and general discussion, and to post instructions.
-One sub-forum for SaveGame, Rules, Calendar, and Technical FAQ (Everything easily accessible, in one place)
-One sub-forum for History (Perhaps historian-controlled, this forum is for people who want to relive our glorious story)


Assuming the details are hashed out, this seems logical and reasonable enough, to me at least. Please let me know how this is like/ not like how things are run around here.

 

[Provolution]

I agree to the main outline of this idea, as it is quite ironic that "Calendar" is considered a good tech in-game, but barely considered in the demogame, or the metagame thereof. I think we need a demogame calendar in order to avoid the confusion we have seen. We also need a smarter way to arbitrate tied polls, and to ensure nothing is played till the poll closes. 7 day periods make sense.

However, I assume elections should be private, but I would personally like them public. We are so few anyways, that private polls serve more as a source of speculation than a source of integrity and privacy.
I also think we should scrap the Judiciary altogether, and leave that to the hands of the leader or the moderators.

 

[cassembler]

I agree to the main outline of this idea, as it is quite ironic that "Calendar" is considered a good tech in-game, but barely considered in the demogame, or the metagame thereof. I think we need a demogame calendar in order to avoid the confusion we have seen. We also need a smarter way to arbitrate tied polls, and to ensure nothing is played till the poll closes. 7 day periods make sense.

Agreed... Call it whatever, but all relevant info related to the "rules of the game," so to speak, should be in one, easily accessible place. Tied polls could simply go to the commander, or by majority vote of the advisers (if there's an odd #, this is pretty solid). And I agree that the 7 day period is _vital_ for peeps like me who might only get an hour here and there. Those who want to play more often could just start a different demo game.

However, I assume elections should be private, but I would personally like them public. We are so few anyways, that private polls serve more as a source of speculation than a source of integrity and privacy.
I also think we should scrap the Judiciary altogether, and leave that to the hands of the leader or the moderators.

I don't see any reasons why elections shouldn't be private. By public (above), I mean registered citizens... oops sorry for any confusion. And as for scrapping the judiciary, I suppose a good group of moderators could do the job.

My whole deal is that, if this is set up simple and nice, it could be a lot more popular and easy to get into. I have to admit that trying to get into DEMOII is pretty rough.

 

[HUSch]

What is democracy? Also what is DG?

In my home forum (German Webring) the most DG have a soviet structure; there is a poll about every and all. And no offices. All are voter and every turn one take the job. There are often after some time informal offices, but the game in itself is allways open to make decisions.

Here you have offices, also team members with duties and no honors, and citizens with exact eyes (like me) without duties, but a vote not only in elections.

But to play the game Civ together you need informations, and for this exist 2 possibilities
1. You are so good in the play that one look is enough to know, what is necessary (I know some in C3 and former)
2. You must allways play within the group to know the goals of some movement and why is this or that (these are the most of players)

From this is my derivate, a DG is for the offices and some would-be-offices. Also a small group play and the other member look and vote sometimes. That is the C4-game; a second part is legalism in this DG, a heavy issue, which i don't understand right, but perhaps it's an educational for US-Democracy.

Additional we have the behavior in groups with the positive and negative against or with another.

 

[DaveShack]

Wow, a user who's been here almost 7 years with only 27 posts!

We have talked about many of the ideas here, throughout the long history of DG's at CFC. It will be interesting to see what will happen next time.

 

[Provolution]

I have been reading some threads dating back to March in this thread, and one can clearly see how several structural problems suffocate the game by the end of Term 2 and beginning of Term 3, well before I joined actively.

As I said earlier, it is the anarcho-liberal gamestructure that is the main source of the problem, and the lack of clarity to new players. I was used to play with stronger powers as military minister in other games, and suddenly the so-called warlord office was a hollow shell. This I knew AFTER I had failed to accept some advise I considered wrong, with a challenge poll.
If this information was readily available, situations like this would have been avoided.

I think a constitution should be scalable, and fit the evolution of a game through various milestones, and these milestones should be placed during the election time. More or less, this means the constitution should be amended every month (during elections) in order to add new needed offices, change civics, agree on long term strategies and so on. Elections now are hollow popularity contests with no substance or no direction.

By placing long term decisions during elections (once a month), we have a good way to place such planning in one designated week, and to make sure elections actually do count. We could also make Civic changes during the elections, as well as alter official titles to fit with the new civic profile.

We also need a minimum of new offices, and I think the first offices to go and be eliminated should be the so-called "Judiciary", which is nothing more than "American Law 101", which is sort of redundant to non-American players or American players that may like to try something else.

Term 1. Ancient-Classical Age (Basic Constitution)
Term 2. Classical-Medieval Age (Add 1 governor, add Minister - Science/Culture and Minister of Religion)
Term 3. Medieval-Renaissance (Add 2 governors, add Minister - Foreign Affairs)
Term 4. Renaissance-Industrial (Divide Military into Army and Navy)
Term 5. Industrial-Modern (Add Minister of Industry)
Term 6 Modern (Add Minister - Space, in case that is a goal)

In previous demogame, it was a success to have one official representing one victory condition, as that kept victory condition discussions alive. These officials should mainly run discussions and polls, and lay out strategies.

Right now, there is no scaleability in the model.

 

[fed1943]

In general I agree and I do think the anarchy "fluid" system is bad to the game.

There must be officers each one with a fixed task. And all of them must be
elected, even if he/she is the only candidate.

DPs is a strange figure: if other officers posted complete instructions, then DP
is just a copy and paste tool; if/when instructions lack, then DP plays a single
game. Chieftain, President,Commander - call it what want - should play the
turn and no DPs on game. But, if some element of " sucession " wanted, then
no reason to have a Chieftain and the scaled DP would play the turn and be the executive leader in its preparation.

Candidates should have programs. Polls must be for important matters.
With all respect, to have them for almost nothing, and not a single one to "mark" one city as commercial, or GPfarm or military is...well an option.
We must believe citizens/players know the game and its strategy.

Best regards,

 

[Provolution]

I wholeheartedly agree Fed, but I am afraid a few think "business as usual" is best, as it suits their style. But I would surely help craft a proposal and put it up for a vote.

 

[cassembler]

Well, HUSch/ DaveShack/ Provolution/ fed1943, I've read your stuff. The big question I have is, "What do we ALL want from a dem game?" I agree that the exact structure is up for grabs. In fact, I propose that the exact structure is completely irrelevant right now. What's important is what we each want to get out of a game.

(I, for example, just want to follow a game from beginning to end, voice an opinion here and there, over a long period of time, and share the victories and defeats with some other players, without having to invest too much time in actively participating. Kind of like watching a mini-series on TV, but having a co producer's input.)

But again, what do y'all want?

Wow, a user who's been here almost 7 years with only 27 posts!

I must be honest... I come from Apolyton land... But yes, I'm old (28) and generally scour the forums for info. Recently, it dawned on me that being more vocal can produce some tastier treats...

 

[Provolution]

I want something as cassembler. But I do not want to guesswork then the TV show starts, and do not want the tv show to go very much outside schedule.
I also like the episodes to have a cast, so I know what each actor does at least for the season (term). I want the pace to be more like series 24, and less like LA Law. Regularity of the show is wanted, not chaotic schedules.

I also want a game where the structure and flow of the game is not decided by some mock court based out of a bad episode of LA Law (scrap the US inspired Mickey Mouse Judiciary and replace that with simple arbitration polls).

This is getting to the point where I want to invite those who wants a game with more structure and flow to a separate site, as it seems there is a steadfast support to let the existing chaos persist. I like demogames, but not without a good structure, flow and storyscape.

 

[fed1943]

Cassembler, as an old wise man (indeed even a little older than my grandsons)
pointed right to the greatest question:

What each one wants from the game?

The question and answer are twice relevant: one can see if that game shall
provide what desired and all others can see what this player can carry to the
game, so to provide what they want.

I would like to be part of a game playing an active role and trying to play well.
And to help and be helped by other players with similar goals.

So, you like information easy to find and you can count on me for that, and I
would like your feedback When you got the time to look at the game.

Best regards,

 

[Provolution]

Fed1943, you are actually born 1943? That beats even Donsig! :O

 

[DaveShack]

I also want a game where the structure and flow of the game is not decided by some mock court based out of a bad episode of LA Law (scrap the US inspired Mickey Mouse Judiciary and replace that with simple arbitration polls).

As a member of said judiciary I could take offense to this.

it seems there is a steadfast support to let the existing chaos persist.

There is resistance to discussing this now, while the game is going on, because it detracts from playing the current game.

There is also resistance to making it more complicated than it needs to be. Flexibility in the schedule is good -- if we played the same time on the same day of the week, then only those who like that day and time are attracted. Sure, it's great if you live in the right timezone, but it sucks if you don't.

Some flexibility in the rules is good. If we flog everyone who breaks a strict rule, and everyone so flogged leaves, then again there will be nobody left.
What we need more is respect, not rules.

 

[Provolution]

Me and several others had issue with the Judiciary in past games, and now, and has nothing to do who is in the Judicial Office. I think it is a fair thing to want it abolished, we already got a leadership, governors, designated players and mods, there is plenty of regulatory bodies to keep people in place. The real focus should be on the workflows, not the amount of regulatory bodies. There are right now more checks and balances than there are functional processes. I read back to March/April as well, and this has been an issue all over.

 

[DaveShack]

I agree that certain people who have sat in those chairs have given the offices negative net worth during their terms.

There are easy non-judiciary alternatives, the problem is that some citizens don't like them.

 

[cassembler]

There is resistance to discussing this now, while the game is going on, because it detracts from playing the current game.

I offer sincerest apologies, and I hope that if this discussion goes any further, a moderator may move it to a more appropriate forum.

But I have some thinking to do, and the gift of S.t.a.l.k.e.r. from my woman to play (! how cool is she???). Besides, the next game isn't for a couple of months at least, right?

 

[DaveShack]

Nothing is wrong per se with having the discussion, I was just saying that some people won't give it their full attention until later.

 

[Strider]

Didn't bother to read most of the thread, but I've got an idea that might throw a new element into the game.

Create a royal family, give it no real power, but the monarch switches at the end of each term (and goes to the next "heir" that the past monarch choose).

 

[Hyronymus]

Didn't bother to read most of the thread, but I've got an idea that might throw a new element into the game.

Create a royal family, give it no real power, but the monarch switches at the end of each term (and goes to the next "heir" that the past monarch choose).

What would be the added value then?

 

[Provolution]

I think a discussion like this, even if badly needed, would never get the full attention of everybody, so it is no reason to discourage it or snuff it out.

I think all the points here raised are valid.