Repeal Incumbent Rule?

[Bootstoots]

I think that the restriction that allows incumbent leaders to run for only one office per election cycle should be repealed. Therefore, I would support an amendment in Code of Standards G.6.C from:

“Incumbent leaders may run for 1 position in each election cycle. Other citizens may run for 2 positions in each election cycle.”

To: “Each citizen may run for up to 2 positions in each election cycle”

I encourage discussion as well as a council vote on this proposition ASAP

 

[Octavian X]

I think we should keep the incumbent rule. It levels the playing field for those who are attempting to enter the world of Fanatikan politics with those who are already leaders themselves.

 

[Shaitan]

I agree. It is far too easy for big name players to dominate an election cycle when they can run for multiple offices. Especially in the early and middle game when there are not tons of provinces meaning far fewer offices available.

 

[Eklektikos]

What we could perhaps do with is an alteration to the election rules that allows provincial governors to govern a second province if all gubernatorial positions are not filled by the end of the election/appointment process. This would mean that in the event that noone was elected to a province and no citizen currently without office wished to take on the job, we could then still fill the position without overburdening the domestic dept for the term.

 

[Cyc]

Then again this may be the obligatory rule change reques for new citizens of the Demogame. It's kind of funny to me that the majority of the people this rule restricts at election time see the good in the rule, but the people it helps the most don't see it.

I'm not really in favor of a second province rule either, as some unknowing or inexperienced Governors may bite off more than they can chose. I DO like the idea of the Senate putting their heads together and reallocating unattended Gubernatorial duties amongst themselves.

 

[Strider]

I believe... That if the DG was larger than what it is now... That this rule should not be allowed, but as we are having problems finding govonors I would support changing this intill we gain a respectful population.

 

[Octavian X]

Remember Strider, repealing a rule that allows current leaders to only run for one position only affects elections - There is still a constitutional article preventing someone from holding multiple leader positions.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Remember Strider, repealing a rule that allows current leaders to only run for one position only affects elections - There is still a constitutional article preventing someone from holding multiple leader positions.

Yes... I know, but this takes away some deputy/deputy govonor poistions.

 

[Bootstoots]

Keep in mind that each leader would still only be able to hold one office at a time. This proposal would still allow for those people that are new to the demogame (like myself) to hold the positions that the incumbent leaders turned down in favor of higher positions, while allowing the incumbent leaders more flexibility during elections.

 

[Zarn]

I would support the repel. We don't have enough people, and my main point was stated in the post before this one by bootstoots. Interesting name, BTW.

 

[Strider]

If I'm thinking right though.... A council vote is not how you have the rule changed.... You need a Citizen's Vote. Am I correct?

 

[Octavian X]

Nope, the specific rule at question here is in the Code of Standards, which is only amendable through a Council Vote.

 

[donsig]

Allowing those entrenched in leadership positions to run for more than one office will not solve the problem of getting more citizens to run for office. It will have the opposite effect since those already entrenched will increase their lock on demogame power. If you really want new blood to come in, run for office and stay there are three things you can do:

1) Institute term limits. You cannot expect new blood until you get rid of the old.

2) Remove the restriction on running for president by allowing any citizen to run for that office, not just leaders and deputies.

3) Exclude all CFC moderators from all demogame offices.

 

[Shaitan]

I agree with #1 and #2.

How in the world would preventing mods from holding office do anything to bring in new blood during elections?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
I agree with #1 and #2.

How in the world would preventing mods from holding office do anything to bring in new blood during elections?

It wouldn't. I said:

If you really want new blood to come in, run for office and stay there are three things you can do:

Excluding moderators from holding office would help to retain players in the demogame. A large part of the demogame is about how to divide different aspects of the Civ 3 game among the demogame players. In other words it is about the distribution of game play *power* among the citizens. To be even more succinct it is about politics. Mods can ban posters, edit other's threads, close and move threads. This gives moderators an unfair advantage in this text based game. I think many players have seen how this advantage works and have chosen not to play because of it.

If you doubt that mod powers have been used politically in this game just compare three periods: DG1, DG2 before mods could hold office and DG2 after mods could hold office. Look at the number of bans that took place in each period. Then for each ban look at who was banned and who placed the ban and see if the parties involved were on opposite sides of a demogame issue or not.

It is not enough to attract new players and get them to run for office. If more players are lost than join then it becomes more and more difficult to fill offices as the game continues and the number of offices increases. For someone to take the time and effort to carry out the duties of an office they need their share of power. Take that away and they lose interest. Demogame power has been concentrated in the hands of too few for too long and that is part of the reason offices cannot be filled.

 

[Shaitan]

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your theory. There was very little of any conflict in the first several terms as there was very little game during that time. In no case was a ban made for disagreement or argument. The bans were for cheating and belligerence.

I've actually noticed things tend towards the other side. Some players seem to egg on moderators that are in office as if daring them to do something about it.

I have never heard of a new player leaving because moderators are permitted to hold office.

 

[Shaitan]

Rough draft in bold. Comments in italics.

A player can hold a Leadership office for a maximum of 3 consecutive terms (full or partial).
3 is a nice round number. Equates to approx 1/2 game in DG1 or 1/3 game in DG2.

Once fulfilling the 3 term limit that player may not hold that particular Leader position nor a position with the possibility of automatic promotion to that position for a minimum of 2 full terms.
So a leader forced out by term limits cannot be the deputy or chat rep for that department, deputy governor for that province, etc. This is because those positions could cause the same player to rise to the Leader position despite the term limit rule and to prevent election wierdness where the winner becomes the deputy or other such nonsense.

A Leader who is not able to run for a position due to this term limit rule is not considered an incumbent or current leader for the purposes of election law.
A little bonus for the poor sop who is getting kicked out of a comfy office. They can run in two elections like everybody else. Also, they could not run for the Presidency under the current rules.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan

I'm sorry but I don't agree with your theory. There was very little of any conflict in the first several terms as there was very little game during that time. In no case was a ban made for disagreement or argument. The bans were for cheating and belligerence.

I've actually noticed things tend towards the other side. Some players seem to egg on moderators that are in office as if daring them to do something about it.

I have never heard of a new player leaving because moderators are permitted to hold office.

There was planty of conflict in the beginning of DG2. Remember the battles over the science queue and whether we should go for republic or monarchy? Why no bans then? The mods weren't highly involved in it, that's why. As for DG1 there were times of intense conflict. Remember PI#6? No one was banned during that political crisis because there were no mods involved in the political fight!

Your point about *egging on* may be true but look to what goes on before it gets to that point. Any *egging on* that I've seen has been more out of frustration that said mods go ahead and do what they want regardless of the demogame rules. Even you Shaitan were willing to put aside rules that you wrote and invoke some sort of mod *authority* to get a city named after the Columbia. An admittedly harmless action in itself but a bad precedent. In any event, I'm sure you would agree with me that there would be no *egging on* of mods if the mods were not involved in the poitical issues of the demogame.

As for your final point, I certainly left this demogame because I found that moderator participation adversely affects the game. Before I left I sent a private message to Thunderfall which was never answered. I opened a thread in site feedback which only resulted in mods (who do not even participate in the demo game) posting that mods must be respected. Hardly anyone who plays the demogame commented in the thread.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Rough draft in bold.

A player can hold a Leadership office for a maximum of 3 consecutive terms (full or partial).

Seems too high. That would have been about half of DG1 and a third(?) of DG2. Plus, a player could serve 3 terms, take a term off and come back for 3 more. If you really want diversity then limit players to one term in each leadership office. The only restriction on deputies need be that a player can not be a deputy for an office he or she already held.

Even this idea would allow a player to hold an office all through the demogame - it would just have to be a different office each term.

 

[Shaitan]

donsig, the lack of response and participation in that Site Feedback thread sort of indicates that it is not an issue with the players of the game. I know you feel strongly about it and I don't want to snub your concerns but I just don't see it the way you do. I suggest you open a discussion thread on the topic and maybe poll it again. Previous poll results have shown conclusively that the majority of players welcome mods in Leadership positions.

In any case we should take this sidebar out of this discussion thread.