Should there be limitations on which factions can submit government proposals

[Joe Harker]

have one person who makes up a faction.

Doesn't that happen now?

Just because someone has not got anyone else's support doesn't mean they should get excluded from attempting to be a prime faction, it might be a really
good ruleset but people don't notice it at first but people come to vote and see it they may well switch sides. If there has to be a limit it has to be two, because three people will be too much, should and when numbers get low.

 

[Strider]

Doesn't that happen now?

The problem with last game was mostly lack of initiative. It's not that there wasn't any, but rather it came from only one or two people at one time and that just wasn't enough. In order for the game to be successful we need a method of garnering initiative from a group of people. Put simply; we need people in order to get people. A single faction can do a lot more than just run for government. They can operate mini-games, start narrative roleplays, etc. However, those things need people and factions will make an organized and accessible group.

For example, if I wanted to start the "gaming guild" where we host tournaments in the like who is most likely to support me? My brothers in the mysticism faction or some people who disagree with my every word elsewhere? Factions supply a meeting place for those with common goals and interests. Allowing one person factions takes away the entire social/roleplay/etc. element in favor of individual power. The entire proposal is looking far to much at how this will effect the government and not how it effects everything else.

Just because someone has not got anyone else's support doesn't mean they should get excluded from attempting to be a prime faction, it might be a really good ruleset but people don't notice it at first but people come to vote and see it they may well switch sides. If there has to be a limit it has to be two, because three people will be too much, should and when numbers get low.

If it is a good ruleset then it will likely garner support and either get adopted by an existing faction or make a new faction.

 

[Shattered]

First of all, this poll is about minimum support needed to propose something, it is only assumed that this maintains only for elections. This poll is strictly misleading and undermining the system we voted on. Under no circumstances is there to be only one person in power. They need to have a minimum number of support to do anything, otherwise we'll see independants winning and appointing independants, and the system will fail. It will be the last demogame all over again.

 

[croxis]

This is also why I wanted to start as a single faction. If a mod could change my vote from No to Yes I would be happy.

One thing I think we are forgetting is that this isn't a computer game. There is nothing to prevent psudeo factions from existing that are smaller, they just arnt offically recognized by the ruleset. Small groups can still put out proposals to gather support, but they can't actually run until they do gather enough support.

Guilds can also provide a transition phase in the creation of new factions - they are organizations which exist outside the rules.

 

[Provolution]

So, with Croxis changing votes, we have a tie (6 Yes, 6 No and 2 Abstain), I suggest to either have a repoll, or make Daveshack arbitrate a result as moderator.

And you are all correct about the faction as a group thing. If there is no 3 person limit for a faction, we have de-facto gotten ourselves back another traditional ruleset variation.

 

[ravensfire]

First of all, this poll is about minimum support needed to propose something, it is only assumed that this maintains only for elections. This poll is strictly misleading and undermining the system we voted on. Under no circumstances is there to be only one person in power. They need to have a minimum number of support to do anything, otherwise we'll see independants winning and appointing independants, and the system will fail. It will be the last demogame all over again.

Shattered, this poll is very specific about what it's about. Simply put, when we determine which faction will take control, those factions interested must post their government proposal. Nothing in this poll restricts, or has ever suggested that it restricts, what is in that proposal. This poll is simply asking if the Faction must have a certain number of members before that proposal can be on the list presented to us to choose from.

You're comment about only one person being in power isn't covered here and never was covered here. ANY faction could post a ruleset that says "Joe Snuffitelli is the supreme ruler. What he says goes." If enough people say they want that government, NOTHING we have will prevent that.

Nothing has been posted showing any harm that will come from allowing a single person that's interested enough to create their own proposal and put it out there. THAT'S roleplaying, and here we've got people that want to hammer that down, and tell them to cease, that they're just too small. They just need to join an existing faction, and work through the system.

I'm sorry, but that's just too restrictive for me. There is NO HARM from seeing what others might come up with. None. So let these small Faction post their rules. They might have enough good ideas that will get people to change their minds and vote for that proposal. So that big faction with paper support and a bad ruleset loses to a small, new faction with a cool concept - where's the problem?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Nothing has been posted showing any harm that will come from allowing a single person that's interested enough to create their own proposal and put it out there. THAT'S roleplaying, and here we've got people that want to hammer that down, and tell them to cease, that they're just too small. They just need to join an existing faction, and work through the system.

I'm sorry, but that's just too restrictive for me. There is NO HARM from seeing what others might come up with. None. So let these small Faction post their rules. They might have enough good ideas that will get people to change their minds and vote for that proposal. So that big faction with paper support and a bad ruleset loses to a small, new faction with a cool concept - where's the problem?

The problem with last game was mostly lack of initiative. It's not that there wasn't any, but rather it came from only one or two people at one time and that just wasn't enough. In order for the game to be successful we need a method of garnering initiative from a group of people. Put simply; we need people in order to get people. A single faction can do a lot more than just run for government. They can operate mini-games, start narrative roleplays, etc. However, those things need people and factions will make an organized and accessible group.

For example, if I wanted to start the "gaming guild" where we host tournaments in the like who is most likely to support me? My brothers in the mysticism faction or some people who disagree with my every word elsewhere? Factions supply a meeting place for those with common goals and interests. Allowing one person factions takes away the entire social/roleplay/etc. element in favor of individual power. The entire proposal is looking far to much at how this will effect the government and not how it effects everything else.

Were not limiting the proposals, merely asking that you prove that your proposal has enough support. We want the ideas to come before the factions and not be just made up because someone wanted to go solo.

It will also eliminate some of this idiotic rule debate that people have complained about.

 

[AluminumKnight]

Nothing has been posted showing any harm that will come from allowing a single person that's interested enough to create their own proposal and put it out there. THAT'S roleplaying, and here we've got people that want to hammer that down, and tell them to cease, that they're just too small. They just need to join an existing faction, and work through the system.

I don't understand how implementing the three person rule prevents people from creating factions. YOU CAN STILL CREATE A FACTION. If your idea is not good, or doesn't garner any sort of support, what business do you have being in the election? If you can't get 3 people to join your faction, you don't stand a chance in the election.

3 members is not a lot; implementing this rule would not eliminate small factions.

 

[DaveShack]

Let's remember the most basic core rule which we have carried over into every previous DG since I've been here.

1. All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
   • The Right to Assemble
   • The Right to Vote
   • The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
   • The Right to Free Speech
   • The Right to Free Movement
   • The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
   • The Right to Presumption of Innocence unless proven guilty
   • The Right of Representation
2. These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times.

Placing a minimum faction population requirement is equivalent to saying:

• The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office (ONLY IF you have enough friends)
  

 

[Strider]

The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office (ONLY IF you have enough friends)

No different from past demogames nor will it be any different if the limit is removed. Thus this argument is null and void.

 

[DaveShack]

You're confusing the right to win an election with the right to be eligible to be a candidate for election. Everyone should be eligible to be a candidate.

And yes, I understand what the faction idea is trying to do. I even agree with it -- but I don't agree with making it a rule.

 

[Strider]

You're confusing the right to win an election with the right to be eligible to be a candidate for election. Everyone should be eligible to be a candidate.

That, once again, completely destroys the entire premise of a faction-based system. Individuals do not run for elections unless the prime factions constitution allows for it.

Regardless the poll is tied. There will have to be a run-off.

 

[DaveShack]

I suggest to either have a repoll, or make Daveshack arbitrate a result as moderator.

Hmm, I'd think that once we founding folks decide what the initial rules are, that the people are going to have to ratify it -- right?

If any arbitration is ever needed, and I'm hoping it won't be, you'll probably see group action by all three of us.

 

[Provolution]

Sounds like a repoll then, and I suggest a third moderator (RikMeleet) sets it up, as he is a true neutral, as he is not a player that voted in here. Sounds like a plan? Rik knows how to set up a neutrally structured and worded poll. This is a heavily disputed point, as it is a be or not to be for the six that voted yes.

 

[Provolution]

Let's remember the most basic core rule which we have carried over into every previous DG since I've been here.




Placing a minimum faction population requirement is equivalent to saying:

• The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office (ONLY IF you have enough friends)
  

These Faction Members do not even have to be friends, they just need to support the same Faction Platform. This is not about the right to run for public office, but the core meaning of the right to assemble of lasting organizations. If properly done, factions represent a recruiting base for new players, since every new introduction to the game is biased, and the most fair thing to do, is to build up the player-base by allowing factions to grow by giving them a meaning beyond a simple one-man guild or one-man faction.

Everyone is entitled to form a faction, alone, but they should get two players to join it and support it, which I think is a small effort. If the presenter of the idea does not care about recruiting two new members to make his faction eligible, then the faction may not have popular support.

 

[ravensfire]

Strider and Shattered,

We can go round and round on this, seeing more drama from various people and the literary equivalent of a SCUD, and still not get very far very fast.

I'll switch my vote here, and all three of us switch our vote in the other poll to two members. It's splitting the difference, and gets the process moving.

Acceptable?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Strider and Shattered,

We can go round and round on this, seeing more drama from various people and the literary equivalent of a SCUD, and still not get very far very fast.

I'll switch my vote here, and all three of us switch our vote in the other poll to two members. It's splitting the difference, and gets the process moving.

Acceptable?

Agreed. Two people in order for a faction to become a prime faction.

 

[ravensfire]

As per the compromise, please change my vote from No to Yes.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Shattered]

Although I admire your will to compromise Ravensfire, I still don't think two is enough people to run for office. I propose a counter-compromise. How about allowing one person factions to exist, but not letting them run for office until they have at least 3 members. Also, one person factions can be appointed by the winning faction to participate in the government as a minister of some sort.

 

[ravensfire]

Respectfully, Shattered, that's not a compromise at all. The winning option for minimum support to propose a government was 3. I prefered 1. Split, that's 2.

EDIT: Sorry, was beating around some villains, and the 10 minute break became just 1.

Shattered, this poll is just looking at what it takes for a Faction to be listed in the Prime Faction poll - that's it. Factions need to put forward their government, we vote and the winner runs the country. I think that in the later part some of those proposals will have open elections, where anyone, regardless of faction, could run for an office. All this poll is about, however, is that initial election, and what it takes to get on that election. This poll was tied, and the other poll (which would take effect if this poll went in favor or minimum requirements) had 3 members winning. That's where I got my 2 from - split that difference.

-- Ravensfire