Starting

[Falcon02]

Octavian, the DoF drew up the first Constitution and everyone saluted as he was the originator of the game. Amendments were done immediately and continuously throughout DG1, which is why the group I mentioned in the first sentance of this post was put together towards the end of the game. Good luck on finding volunteers.

Has anyone concidered taking the old DG1 Consititution (DoF's version or likely better, the later version) and using that with maybe slight variations? Or has my, to say the least, disinterest in the legal details caused me to miss something which makes this impossible or unwise?

 

[Cyc]

Has anyone concidered taking the old DG1 Consititution (DoF's version or likely better, the later version) and using that with maybe slight variations? Or has my, to say the least, disinterest in the legal details caused me to miss something which makes this impossible or unwise?

Hey Falc.
DoF's Constitution was great as it gave us a platform to operate the game from. But as I said, we were amending it within the first week. It was so full of holes and we were so full of new ideas that the hammering out of a new document never really stopped. The strange thing is, I tried looking for DoF's original Constitution about mid DG2 and couldn't find it, only modified versions. I think it was scurried off into a private Hall of Fame or something.

DG1's final version of the Constitution (like 4.01v) was hammered out to create the DG2 version, 'cause the DG2 version was just plain better all the way around. The DG1 version had too many loopholes and allowed for too much whining from the masses with no recourse.

So it looks like the DG2 version is what you're looking for. But that one is so all inclusive, that people either don't want to read it or follow the rules. Can't win for losing in this game.

 

[Octavian X]

I suggest, Cyc, a closed door convention with elected representatives to hammer out a new system of governance, an undertaking that will be monumental, I am sure. I also am confident we can get some who are genearlly interested in taking part in such a project.

Closed door, I say, because of the current climate of this forum. There's always pressure just to get a move on with the whole process, without much attention paid and little done to actually change things for the better, since when there is interest, there's also hostile reaction without much discussion. I also suggest a closed door session since we've drawn up new rulesets in the same way for the last three games in this open manner, with little apparent success. My bet is that, with no pressure to hurry up, and with civil discussion of the issues without having to worry about interference and mod action, a new document can be drawn up and presented as a whole before the fourm. No rush job to get things done - hopefully leading to quality work. All this while the game goes on with it's current ruleset.

 

[DaveShack]

The idea of having an elected commission work privately on a ruleset sounds like a great idea. We should consider making the internal workings of such a commission available as a report, to be delivered concurrently with the proposed rule set, so that nobody can claim foul play if rules come out of committee that they don't like.

As for starting with the existing ruleset, I would like to propose allowing amendments with a simple majority (instead of 67%) until 9/1/04 or until ratification of the replacement ruleset, whichever comes first.

 

[Cyc]

I suggest, Cyc, a closed door convention with elected representatives to hammer out a new system of governance, an undertaking that will be monumental, I am sure. I also am confident we can get some who are genearlly interested in taking part in such a project.

Closed door, I say, because of the current climate of this forum. There's always pressure just to get a move on with the whole process, without much attention paid and little done to actually change things for the better, since when there is interest, there's also hostile reaction without much discussion. I also suggest a closed door session since we've drawn up new rulesets in the same way for the last three games in this open manner, with little apparent success. My bet is that, with no pressure to hurry up, and with civil discussion of the issues without having to worry about interference and mod action, a new document can be drawn up and presented as a whole before the fourm. No rush job to get things done - hopefully leading to quality work. All this while the game goes on with it's current ruleset.

I can see a separate panel using a dedicated thread to work on the issues, just as you say, Octavian, but I'm against the closed door convention. Ultimately, through all the whining and complaining, or whatever, it will be better for everyone to see the document being built than just having it be presented to them. This dedicated thread could have an announcement at the top stating that it was for official use only (something of that nature), but if the public wanted to input in any way they could PM us or start a discussion thread of their own (or both). Private meetings are just way too hard to schedule for a group of people, and the private forum, such as the one ravensfire used for the Judiciary, is just tooooo separatist for me. We need to let the people watch if they want to.

 

[ravensfire]

I like that idea, Cyc.

Okay, everyone can stop gasping - we don't always disagree.

A small group - 3 to 5 people max, crafting the structure and language, in a consistent format, would probably have things nailed down in 2-3 weeks tops.

The two threads is a good idea as well, although I certainly would not preclude pm's or email discussions as they happen. I would use it as a means to post the issues under discussion, the various proposals and a summary every few days of where things are, what discussions have happened, etc.

The use of 3 day polls to decide deadlock issues would be a good thing as well.

-- Ravensfire

 

[BCLG100]

yep i like that idea as it would allow me to completly ignore the rules and there set up. i dont really care how we get it done but i want to start the game during the holidays so i can be of some use.

 

[Epimethius]

Talk about a way to kill participation. Just dissapear from sight for two weeks, and then return with something a bunch of officials, with no idea what the people want, came up with. Isolation from the people is the number one way to invent a democratic consitution, just like a complete lack of public posting is a great way to generate participation.

I find it quite funny that those pressuring to hurry things up are complaining about that pressure. I also find it funny that in a rush to get the constitution done people are calling for a two week private session. And that people are for having a bunch of oligarchs draw up a constition for a democracy. Hilarious.

 

[ravensfire]

You, ahhh, didn't read things too carefully, did you?

Quote from Octavian's:

No rush job to get things done - hopefully leading to quality work. All this while the game goes on with it's current ruleset.

Quote from DaveShack's:

As for starting with the existing ruleset, I would like to propose allowing amendments with a simple majority (instead of 67%) until 9/1/04 or until ratification of the replacement ruleset, whichever comes first.

Hilarious

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Not quite sure how to take this. Is there something wrong with suggestions of ways to move the game forward as mandated while also having a glimmer of hope that a good ruleset will also be available someday?

 

[Cyc]

Talk about a way to kill participation. Just dissapear from sight for two weeks, and then return with something a bunch of officials, with no idea what the people want, came up with. Isolation from the people is the number one way to invent a democratic consitution, just like a complete lack of public posting is a great way to generate participation.

I find it quite funny that those pressuring to hurry things up are complaining about that pressure. I also find it funny that in a rush to get the constitution done people are calling for a two week private session. And that people are for having a bunch of oligarchs draw up a constition for a democracy. Hilarious.

Firt off, Epimethus, I'm not for the isolationism discussed here. I would much rather see everything posted in a dedicated thread in the citizen's subforum. Secondly, no one ever said that you couldn't be one of those official oligarchs. I feel you could contribute to the document in many ways. I also don't remember complaining about the pressure. I've worked on quite a few Constitutions, including one for a different website, and the only real pressure (other than donsigism) I experience is when those citizens who don't feel the need to contribute to the document feel a great need to complain about the end product.

 

[Chieftess]

Maybe it's because they don't understand the current wording until something happens. When the demogame was conceived, it was to be a simple game of electing officials, discussing the current events, voting, and putting into effect those actions.

 

[Epimethius]

Firt off, Epimethus, I'm not for the isolationism discussed here. I would much rather see everything posted in a dedicated thread in the citizen's subforum.

Good. But someone else did. I'm not necessarily targeting all of you, because that obviously doesn't make much sense.

Secondly, no one ever said that you couldn't be one of those official oligarchs. I feel you could contribute to the document in many ways.

Nice try.

I also don't remember complaining about the pressure. I've worked on quite a few Constitutions, including one for a different website, and the only real pressure (other than donsigism) I experience is when those citizens who don't feel the need to contribute to the document feel a great need to complain about the end product.

I didn't mean to say that the people applying the pressure were the same as those calling for this. I was saying that considering what everyone is ranting about elsewhere, calling for this is absurd. It seems like isolationism already if people think that this is the solution to the problems we have.

 

[Sarevok]

Maybe it's because they don't understand the current wording until something happens. When the demogame was conceived, it was to be a simple game of electing officials, discussing the current events, voting, and putting into effect those actions.

And that is what it should be. This is not debate team people, this is a democracy game!

 

[Octavian X]

Perhaps I did go to far to suggest a completely closed door experience. Looking at Cyc's comments, perhaps the use of this forum would be good, to keep the process visible. I do still believe it should be a closed one so that those working on the new document will be completely focused on their task - occasional interjects from an occasional observer would be too distracting, I think. Something like a setup where offical threads for working on the new document could be viewed by all, but only posted in by the committee.

This committee, I think, would be better, since decisions, especially votes on certain issues, would procede much faster, and other business could then be discusseded. Of course, such votes should only be decided unanimously, to force compromises of the different views.

 

[Sarevok]

good Idea, get it setup!

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Maybe it's because they don't understand the current wording until something happens. When the demogame was conceived, it was to be a simple game of electing officials, discussing the current events, voting, and putting into effect those actions.

And then it evolved from that into something more complex. But not to worry....the de-evolution of the game is almost complete, especially when our laws are not even given the importance they deserve from the forum moderator. A bad example, don't you think?

You unilateral decision with no DG5 Forum yet available will only disenfrachise those that hold our ruleset in high regard. I am only about two steps from the door myself. Once we have left, you will have precisely the type of game you wish to have. No fuss, no distracting debate.....just pure chatroom bliss.

 

[Cyc]

Well, how about making an Anouncement about when you will be putting the DG5 Forums up? We actually want those....

 

[Sarevok]

Well, how about making an Anouncement about when you will be putting the DG5 Forums up? We actually want those....

indeed, those would be better.

 

[Immortal]

This is absurd, DZ posted 24 hours ago echoing the same sentiments now expressed by 4 strong members of this community, and all the requests have been ignored. I will not accept the "we werent online" bit because chieftess you have replied in the thread.

Dropping in, making a doomsday prophecy and dissapearing to nowhere is NOT the way this should be occuring.