Justus II
General Staff
I am hesitant to respond, because the last thing I want to do is reignite a controversy, but after being gone for the weekend and catching up on posts, there are two points I would like to make.
First, as to the "Last minute polls" comment. I remember the decision to rush a library at Pherris during the first term, and it was a last minute decision. However, the most recent three cities in question were posted two days before the appropriate turn chat (well, 1AM on the first, after checking). That still allowed all day of the 1st, and up to the turn chat on the 2nd, or over 40 hours for debate and discussion. The question did not come up until after the previous turn chat, when it was decided we would be soon revolting, and leaving despotism. After conducting my analysis, and making my recommendations, I decided to post a citizens poll to get input from as many people as possible.
This was precisely because of the outcry after the Pherris decision, even though as I understand it building decisions rest with the Domestic Leader, with the Culture Minister having the right to overrule in cases involving cultural borders. The method listed for deciding such cases would be a cabinet vote, not a public poll, which was NOT required. As I stated, however, I wanted to get the feelings of the public before making a decision I knew would generate honest differences of opinion.
IF I had wanted a last-minute decision, why would I have even posted a Poll? Much less given enough advance warning for opposition groups to form, etc. I was actually glad to see that, in my opinion that is what this game is supposed to be about, intelligent debate over issues. And, if the poll had been a majority against rushing, then I would not have done so. However, the voting in all three polls was 2 or 3 to one in favor, with a similar margin in each poll, so I felt that the democratic process worked, even with a legitimate, and vocal, minority opposition.
The second point I would like to respond to is the analogy by Shaitan. Although it is a good analogy if you want to put this issue in personal terms, I think if we look at some other applications, it might put things in the proper perspective. For example, when Falcon's Haven was attacked and razed by the Egyptians, would that mean Falcon should be banned from the game for a month? While it might be more "realistic", it would not be as much fun, certainly not for Falcon! Similarly, we could assign certain citizens to specific military units, and if that designated Immortal is lost in combat, they would be kicked out of the game. (As a "real-life" member of the military, I think that would sometimes be a good idea for members of our "real-life" government leaders, but that is a different subject, and probably far off-topic).
My point, however, is that if we go too far into the "realistic" side, we will lose sight of the fact that this is the Democracy GAME. Yes, rushing buildings under despotism costs population. Yes, attacking size-1 cities results in auto-razing. Often, capturing a large enemy city results in starvation. But those are the parameters of the game, and in order to make decisions on how to play the game, we have to operate within those rules. You still have every right to disagree, or argue that the lost production of that citizen outwieghs the benefits of the library, which is what the Democracy part is all about. Someone could (and probably will) argue against the new Deforestation proposal on the grounds that it hurts our environment. That may be true in "real life", but in terms of the laws of Civ nature, it comes down to a decision about food and shield production. There are a host of other issues that could be viewed as real-world moral issues, but I think if we go too far in that direction, we lose focus on the fact that we are operating within the confines of a game, and we need to play by those rules. For example, are captured Egyptian workers "slaves"? If so, maybe we should return them! etc. etc. In my opinion, things like rushing and forest harvesting are there to balance out the high corruption rates, and generally is when I use them.
I hope future issues generate as much interest and debate, although I do hope it can be kept on a less personal level. I would like to believe that none of us would actually enjoy whipping or killing real people, I know I wouldn't. Within the context of the rules of Civ, I felt using the "pop-rush" function to complete a Library in these cities to be the most effective way to put our Civ in the best overall position. I don't think that makes me "barbaric", or a participant in "genocide". But everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is why they call it Democracy.
First, as to the "Last minute polls" comment. I remember the decision to rush a library at Pherris during the first term, and it was a last minute decision. However, the most recent three cities in question were posted two days before the appropriate turn chat (well, 1AM on the first, after checking). That still allowed all day of the 1st, and up to the turn chat on the 2nd, or over 40 hours for debate and discussion. The question did not come up until after the previous turn chat, when it was decided we would be soon revolting, and leaving despotism. After conducting my analysis, and making my recommendations, I decided to post a citizens poll to get input from as many people as possible.
This was precisely because of the outcry after the Pherris decision, even though as I understand it building decisions rest with the Domestic Leader, with the Culture Minister having the right to overrule in cases involving cultural borders. The method listed for deciding such cases would be a cabinet vote, not a public poll, which was NOT required. As I stated, however, I wanted to get the feelings of the public before making a decision I knew would generate honest differences of opinion.
IF I had wanted a last-minute decision, why would I have even posted a Poll? Much less given enough advance warning for opposition groups to form, etc. I was actually glad to see that, in my opinion that is what this game is supposed to be about, intelligent debate over issues. And, if the poll had been a majority against rushing, then I would not have done so. However, the voting in all three polls was 2 or 3 to one in favor, with a similar margin in each poll, so I felt that the democratic process worked, even with a legitimate, and vocal, minority opposition.
The second point I would like to respond to is the analogy by Shaitan. Although it is a good analogy if you want to put this issue in personal terms, I think if we look at some other applications, it might put things in the proper perspective. For example, when Falcon's Haven was attacked and razed by the Egyptians, would that mean Falcon should be banned from the game for a month? While it might be more "realistic", it would not be as much fun, certainly not for Falcon! Similarly, we could assign certain citizens to specific military units, and if that designated Immortal is lost in combat, they would be kicked out of the game. (As a "real-life" member of the military, I think that would sometimes be a good idea for members of our "real-life" government leaders, but that is a different subject, and probably far off-topic).
My point, however, is that if we go too far into the "realistic" side, we will lose sight of the fact that this is the Democracy GAME. Yes, rushing buildings under despotism costs population. Yes, attacking size-1 cities results in auto-razing. Often, capturing a large enemy city results in starvation. But those are the parameters of the game, and in order to make decisions on how to play the game, we have to operate within those rules. You still have every right to disagree, or argue that the lost production of that citizen outwieghs the benefits of the library, which is what the Democracy part is all about. Someone could (and probably will) argue against the new Deforestation proposal on the grounds that it hurts our environment. That may be true in "real life", but in terms of the laws of Civ nature, it comes down to a decision about food and shield production. There are a host of other issues that could be viewed as real-world moral issues, but I think if we go too far in that direction, we lose focus on the fact that we are operating within the confines of a game, and we need to play by those rules. For example, are captured Egyptian workers "slaves"? If so, maybe we should return them! etc. etc. In my opinion, things like rushing and forest harvesting are there to balance out the high corruption rates, and generally is when I use them.
I hope future issues generate as much interest and debate, although I do hope it can be kept on a less personal level. I would like to believe that none of us would actually enjoy whipping or killing real people, I know I wouldn't. Within the context of the rules of Civ, I felt using the "pop-rush" function to complete a Library in these cities to be the most effective way to put our Civ in the best overall position. I don't think that makes me "barbaric", or a participant in "genocide". But everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is why they call it Democracy.
