The Official's Powers Dicussion

[Swissempire]

There seems to be a large debate about these in here and http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161305.

Since this seems to be a hot topic i wanted to open up the discussion to all.

I would encourage all those previously involved to either post quotes of there responses and stuff or just sum up your opinion.

I would also encourage everyone to post in here there opinion. It helps in guaging popular feeling on this issue.

 

[Swissempire]

These are the letters being exchanged in the SoS thread, as so you don't have to go back in forth thorugh the link

1)

Madam Secretary,

After much discussion and polling it was decided that we wanted to do minimal trading, especially with Mongolia. Mongolia rec'd exactly 2 out of 23 votes ranking them above suspect nation in your department's poll. You own instructions (in line with citizen's wishes as expressed in said poll) were Suspect Nation: Mongolia. Refuse any demand, and refuse any trades. Yet we made not one but TWO trades with them. We traded away alphabet after citizen input that we should not do that. Citizens called for a trade to get us sailing and there is no indication in the game play summary that it was even checked for.

What do you plan to do since your posted instructions were not followed? Will you take any steps to ensure this does not happen in the future?

donsig,
Concerned Citizen

2)

Dear Concerned Citizien,

What would you recommned doing Donsig. I just wanted to no. I think that while the citiziens will was not followed directly, anything that profits our nation is very good for the citiziens indeed! I would recommend the Great and Glorious Cheiftess commend those at the turnchat for there pro-active pursuuit of Licentian Knowledge.

Signed,
Swissempire,
Less-concerned citizien

3)

First I would recommend that Chieftess and not Swissempire reply to my earlier post. Second, I would expect not only Chieftess but the designated player to halt play and return to the forums if posted instructions could not be carried out. According to Chieftess's own poll we overwhelming designated Mongolia as at least a suspect nation. In another poll we decided we wanted to make minimal trades, especially with the Mongols. All that was flushed down the toilet by those at the chat. I want to know why Chieftess, who is certainly no demogame novice, allowed that to happen!

I am very dismayed that the one we have entrusted to be Censor is not concerned with the rights of citizens.

signed
donsig
an even more concerned ciitizen

4)

Dear Donsig,

I find this conversing in letters quite fun. Needless to say, i was not responding to your post, mearly asking you a question and expressing my opinion. Secondly, i am insulted by your out-and-out saying that i don't have the citiziens rights in mind. Lets not play politics here. You and i both know we both have citiziens rights in mind. If you don't, then your obviously not as smart as i thought you were. We just happen to have different opinions. If doing what is good for the citiziens or defending the people who did it isn't good for the citiziens, then I don't know what is! As i have said and will say, we trust these official, have elected them to represent us, and have given them this authority.

Secondly, how DARE you imply that since i have less experience than you or cheiftess, and that the people who ultimatly made the decisions, that we can't be trusted or even heard! Its a new game, and a new consituency, lets get with it Donsig. You are the worst kind of vetist

Sincerely,
Swissempire
An Apalled and Concerned Citizien

5)

Dear Apalled,

Yes, this is quite fun. It is great to know we agree on something. I am sorry you were insulted when I said you don't have citizens rights in mind but you obviously don't. While it is not listed in our constitution a fundamental human right is the right to make up one's own mind, even if in doing so one makes a mistake. I am quite comfortable letting my fellow citizens make their own choices and have faith that if they do not always choose wisely they will at least recognize their mistakes and correct them. It seems to me that in your opinion our citizens are not to be trusted to make choices. It seems you feel our citizens should be treated like children who should be seen and not heard and who need decisons made for them, otherwise they would bring ruin upon themselves and their country. If I misunderstand your philosophy please enlighten me.

I did not mean to imply that you have less experience than Chieftess or myself. I would never do that. Since both Chieftess and I have been involved in the demogames since term one of the first Civ III DG (and you were not), I would have simply come out and said you had less experience than us if that had been my point. I did mean to imply that since Chieftess has been involved in so many demogames she should have known that what transpired at the last chat was wrong. I really do hope she will respond to the questions I posted earlier in this thread.

signed
donsig
an extremely concerned citizen

6)

Dear Donsig(and Ravensfire, i answer his question in the letter too),

You should see the smile on my face, i haven't had this much fun in awhile. Now i don't see how i'm violating Human Rights. When have i stopped anyone from making up there mind? You made up your mind that you wished to call me out on this, I made up my mind that i would respond, the people at the turnchat made up there mind to do the trade, you made up your mind to write the first letter. I fail to see my human rights violation, but good try.

As for the citiziens rights violation, when did i ever try to protect the citiziens? I'm all for trial and error. In fact, I personally trust them enough to run for office, and then DO stuff in that office once their there. I trust them enough to listen to them. I trust them because we are all citiziens. I am, you are, we all are. An official is just a citizien trusted by the majority of citiziens. Trusted enough that authority is granted to them. Our citiziens are our country, they are our demogame.

For the Cheiftess Thing, it may have been wrong in your opinion, but you should let her make up her own mind, instead of assuming that since you have both been around long enough that your opinions must snych up. Delusions of Superiorty only create delusions.

And to ravensfire, in my opinion yes they were. If you go back and read the polls, our trading policy was decided so we wouldn't grow to powerful, powerful enough to be loathed. We clearly haven't. ANd i find two trades a minimal amount, so it fits there too. As for the Mongolian Classification, they were voted suspect because we know there was going to be eventual war. We didn't want to give them any advantages. Yet, by gaining Iron Working, we have allowed ourselves the ablility to build swordsman, and offensive unit, and have closed the gap between us and the Mongols. By getting IW without benifiting them militarily, we came out on top, and followed the citiziens will.

Sincerely,
Swissempire
Citizien who keeps upping Donsigs adjective

 

[Hardvark]

Surely the purpose of having elections is to elect officials to make these decisions. Whether you vote for someone because you agree with what they say, or you believe that they will listen to the people, disappointment is part of democracy. You just unelect them at the next opportunity.

There really doesn't seem any point in having elected officials if they're going to have to hold binding polls before making any decisions. If they choose to, that's fine. If they choose to just hold a poll to guage people's opinions and let that inform their decisions, that's fine to. If we're really going to insist that the people make every decision, then let's do away with the government and just have citizen polls for every decision.

For me, the more worrying aspect of this whole argument is how few of our government and judiciary are actually elected this term. This seems to be turning into a dictatorship game by default. This in no way implies any criticism of our officials. It's hardly their fault that no-one stood to oppose them; however, the checks and balances of democracy exist because the government is elected and therefore ultimately answerable to the people. I'm afraid that this largely isn't the case at the moment. It's great to see people holding such firm views about issues within the game. If our government makes decisions that we really don't agree with then get rid of them at the next opportunity, but that's only possible if there is an alternative choice.

Looking at the polls that are held, there seems to be a maximum of about 30 people who even bother to vote for things. If we can't generate more interest in the game to at least increase citizen participation in polls, then we have no chance of increasing the number of candidates for elections. Now before anyone tells me to shut up and put my money where my mouth is, I honestly don't have the guaranteed spare time to commit to holding an office within the game, but I do try to at least check in every day and see how things are going and whether there are any polls. And in any case, as a member of the fourth estate my job is to critisise and ridicule elected officials, not join their ranks! I'll crawl back under my rock now.

 

[robboo]

In the poll that I posted. I screwed up in not being clear with my thought process and intentions in the first post.

BUT....as I stated the opinions help me get a feel for what the citizens want and if there is a consenus. Also they might give me another option as what was suggested by pajka. in this case there isnt a consensus. I didnt want to do just what I felt like doing so thats why I asked for the opinions.

Now my reasons for not making it binding are as follows. If I made it binding I was afrad I would come off as an official trying to take power away from another office--trying to get war declared without the Sec of State. I looked at it as a separation of powers thing. In addition I feel that a citizens initiative needs to come from a citizen. Otherwise it feels like and looks like you have to be an elected(or non-elected) official.


Now as far as what happened with the tech trading..I agree( but voted in the TC) that it should not have been decided in the TC, BUT I did think the trade was a good idea. I think the biggest problem is that the Most favored nation idea could not be followed...Russia demanded Alphabet and Mongolia was a very willing trade partner. Some times despite the citizens wishes..the game doesnt let things go the way we want. HOWEVER...we should have halted the TC to vote on it.

 

[Strider]

Officials have as much power as the citizens are willing to give them. Simple.

Now, the whole problem is this:

We, as the citizens, should have as much power as possible, and give the leaders little. That is a democratic government in it's purest form. However, if we take that approach, then no one will want to become a leader.

Someway, we've got to find a balance between the two.

 

[Swissempire]

Officials have as much power as the citizens are willing to give them. Simple.

Now, the whole problem is this:

We, as the citizens, should have as much power as possible, and give the leaders little. That is a democratic government in it's purest form. However, if we take that approach, then no one will want to become a leader.

Someway, we've got to find a balance between the two.

And up until now we have. We elected theses officials, then had neccary dicussion and polls to guide them. In previous terms, even little things like which tiles to work were at least dicussed. But to splitting now is bad for the game. I agree with the TC trade, and you can see the last letter for the reason why. Robboo was justified in his opinion poll. It has been approved by the Censor. As for the TC thing, i should hope it doen't happen again. I agree the TC should be stopped when game changing decisions come up.

Now the two new schools of thought can be defined as:

Esuela de Donsig- The beleif that Citiziens should control everything, and having officials only to post an organized list of info for the DP. Some more radical forms of this include removal of the TC all together

Shule der Officials- The beleif that once elected officials should have all the power, only being guided by opinion polls and discussions.

I personally do not subscribe to either but instead to the implace:

School of Governing Balance- This beleif stresses a balance between officials and the citizienry. It beleives that the citiziens elect there officials because they trust them to make the correct decision. They guide them with dicussions, and have binding initives on large current issues, or on small issues. They allow the official manuevering power in applying his/her strategy, and if they don'y approve, they the don'y reelect them.


And thats is what i think the debate is about. not about a poll or a decsion, but new thinking in the way of government. So lets get more dicussion, then poll baby!

 

[robboo]

I personally do not subscribe to either but instead to the implace:

School of Governing Balance- This beleif stresses a balance between officials and the citizienry. It beleives that the citiziens elect there officials because they trust them to make the correct decision. They guide them with dicussions, and have binding initives on large current issues, or on small issues. They allow the official manuevering power in applying his/her strategy, and if they don'y approve, they the don'y reelect them.

I agree with this one 100%..if the citizens have all the power..why even have offices just poll everything. If the offices have all the power..why not just play a Succession game.

 

[Strider]

I personally do not subscribe to either but instead to the implace:

School of Governing Balance- This beleif stresses a balance between officials and the citizienry. It beleives that the citiziens elect there officials because they trust them to make the correct decision. They guide them with dicussions, and have binding initives on large current issues, or on small issues. They allow the official manuevering power in applying his/her strategy, and if they don'y approve, they the don'y reelect them.

Yeah, that's what I just said above, just in one sentence instead of an entire paragraph. That and I didn't add in the drama.

 

[DaveShack]

Here's the balance you're looking for.

Officials should post information about their office for the coming turnchat and open it up for discussion, preferably with a leading position which says what the official thinks we should do. If the people agree with that position and say nothing or post their approval in the thread, then the official can proceed without polling under their mandate. A reasonable time period must have been given for comments, at least 24 hours and preferably 48.

If the official doesn't really know what to do, one way to start is with an opinion poll. The official can then have a discussion on the leading option(s) from the poll, and once again if the people say nothing or approve of the selection from the poll then the official proceeds.

If there is significant disagreement (in the opinion of the official) then a referendum should be used so that folks who don't comment and prefer to just vote can have their say.

If someone still disagrees with the official, or if a citizen wants to pre-empt the process, then an initiative can be used to accomplish that. Certain actions require initiatives, such as declaring war.

All binding decisions must be made in the forum and posted in an instruction thread. The only "decisions" which can be made in the chat are when the DP assumes responsibility for an area due to an official not posting instructions. The DP may not hide behind the opinions voiced in the chat as being a decision of the people, and if such input disagrees with forum input the DP is in danger of a CC. The DP for a session should always have a good handle on all the discussions and polls pertaining to that session so as not to be trapped into failing to follow the people's decision by chat attendees.

 

[Hardvark]

It's all very well having this lovely argument between yourselves about how much power the "elected" officials should have, but this seems to me to somewhat miss the point. Most of the officials aren't elected, because not enough people bother to stand in elections. And judging from the polls there's not a great deal more interest in the game.

By my reckoning there are 13 elected postions at present (including governors and the judiciary), of which only 3 were contested this term. And the turnout was just under 30, which seems pretty standard for polls at present. Pretty soon you can all do whatever the hell you like in the game, because there won't be any citizens to answer to.

So what's more important? A handfull of you bickering about the extent of the power held by officials, or the fact that this game is dying on its feet in terms of interest?

 

[DaveShack]

So what's more important? A handfull of you bickering about the extent of the power held by officials, or the fact that this game is dying on its feet in terms of interest?

The only cure for that is participation. Only you and citizens like you can change it.

 

[robboo]

So what's more important? A handfull of you bickering about the extent of the power held by officials, or the fact that this game is dying on its feet in terms of interest?

Could they be linked??

 

[Strider]

It's all very well having this lovely argument between yourselves about how much power the "elected" officials should have, but this seems to me to somewhat miss the point. Most of the officials aren't elected, because not enough people bother to stand in elections. And judging from the polls there's not a great deal more interest in the game.

By my reckoning there are 13 elected postions at present (including governors and the judiciary), of which only 3 were contested this term. And the turnout was just under 30, which seems pretty standard for polls at present. Pretty soon you can all do whatever the hell you like in the game, because there won't be any citizens to answer to.

So what's more important? A handfull of you bickering about the extent of the power held by officials, or the fact that this game is dying on its feet in terms of interest?

Trust me, I've said the same thing many times already.

I've been meaning to write a report for the main page, but I've been to busy so far. With some luck, a report on the main page and the new democracy game help guide will nail us acouple of citizens.

Then I'm hoping the RPG and the Information Department will help us keep them.

It's just taking time, which I have to little of these days.

 

[Hardvark]

The only cure for that is participation. Only you and citizens like you can change it.

Could they be linked??

But without more citizens taking an interest nothing's going to change. And I agree that the bickering is probably, at least in part, what's driving people away. It's a vicious circle. A more constructive dialogue may encourage people to become involved, but increasingly it seems that what dialogue there is is not particularly constructive.

Trust me, I've said the same thing many times already.

It's nice to know that I'm not alone in this. I think that one of the ideas behind the Licentian Town Cryer was to put a more 'fun' spin on the game and hopefully create some interest. So if there's anything that we can do to help your efforts let me know. Of course, we have to get them through the door first!

 

[Swissempire]

I think a major reason for the fall in play, is the destruction of the political parties. People were involved because they could just go to the party hub and get a talk going. There is no where to do that now. And by moving the political parties the the role-playing forum, people don't see them as entities that can make a difference. The feeling of empowerment and cohesivness you can get from a party is unmatched, but now when citiziens log on, they only see bickering or dicussions of which tile to work. I think the RPG will bring back some people, but i fear it will not be enough.

 

[DaveShack]

I think a major reason for the fall in play, is the destruction of the political parties.

That's a large part of it, and it's hugely ironic that the one person who seems most concerned about lack of participation and death of the demogame is the one who neutered the political parties and may have directly contributed to its demise.

 

[BCLG100]

Could they be linked??

my god yes! I only stay in the demogame out of loyalty, however many of you arguing over minute pieces of power is not encouarging to newer members who may find it dull.

 

[Strider]

The only thing I did to political parties was made them useless during elections, no more organized block voting was what I wanted, and it's what I got.

Not my problem that block voting was the only reason people joined political parties. I've done nothing to stop people from getting on and "chatting."

 

[Hardvark]

That's a large part of it, and it's hugely ironic that the one person who seems most concerned about lack of participation and death of the demogame is the one who neutered the political parties and may have directly contributed to its demise.

Don't really want to delve into the past, but I'm pretty sure that a) Strider didn't intend to cause the demise of the game, and b) he didn't single handedly neuter the political parties. If he did manage it all on his own then that was some achievement!

The point is that we need to look to the future and how we're going to recreate interest in the game, not keep arguing and finger pointing.

BCLG100's post is pretty much what I thought. So let's all try and be more positive, both about the game and how we speak to each other, before we drive the last few loyal citizens away.

 

[Strider]

I wrote the report for the main page and PMed it to Chieftess. She's away from the weekend though, so I don't think we will see it for awhile.