Alphawolf
Basileus, Founding Father
Slim_Chance said:
That I did.
-the Wolf
Triumvirate Government v3.0
- Thread starter Alphawolf
- Start date
That I did.
-the Wolf
I've had some chance to catch up on this, so here are some comments.
First let me say that as a whole, this is very well written. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it, more than I have time to put into my own proposals to be honest about it. Whether this gets accepted by the majority or not, you're to be commended for putting this together.
One objective of the Constitution / CoL split into (out of game) vs (in game) respectively is to allow us to keep the Constitution stable from game to game. To that end, the judiciary is one of the areas where my preference is to keep it very generic. Can this section be organized so that the powers and duties of the judiciary are collected into one section, and procedures relating to the judiciary are in another section?
One of the titanic struggles throughout the history of the Demogames on CFC, at least the ones I have participated in (Civ3 DG3 and later), has been between putting lots of details into the rules vs. having less detail. I noticed there is a lot of procedural detail in this proposal. Similarily to the above comment on the judiciary, how easy is it to separate the "what" of this proposal, e.g. who is responsible for which areas, from the "how" e.g. what procedure is followed? Would you have a problem with putting the "what" into a Code of Laws layer and the "how" into a 3rd "Code of Standards" layer? Would you be willing to forego some of the detailed procedures, if the people who aren't commenting in the thread come down hard against wanting that level of detail?
First let me say that as a whole, this is very well written. You've obviously put a lot of effort into it, more than I have time to put into my own proposals to be honest about it. Whether this gets accepted by the majority or not, you're to be commended for putting this together.
One objective of the Constitution / CoL split into (out of game) vs (in game) respectively is to allow us to keep the Constitution stable from game to game. To that end, the judiciary is one of the areas where my preference is to keep it very generic. Can this section be organized so that the powers and duties of the judiciary are collected into one section, and procedures relating to the judiciary are in another section?
One of the titanic struggles throughout the history of the Demogames on CFC, at least the ones I have participated in (Civ3 DG3 and later), has been between putting lots of details into the rules vs. having less detail. I noticed there is a lot of procedural detail in this proposal. Similarily to the above comment on the judiciary, how easy is it to separate the "what" of this proposal, e.g. who is responsible for which areas, from the "how" e.g. what procedure is followed? Would you have a problem with putting the "what" into a Code of Laws layer and the "how" into a 3rd "Code of Standards" layer? Would you be willing to forego some of the detailed procedures, if the people who aren't commenting in the thread come down hard against wanting that level of detail?
Alphawolf
Basileus, Founding Father
Thank youDaveShack said:
Great, another thing to do over the weekend, Yes it can and will be.
No, not in the lease, it is a democracy after all.
-the Wolf
Swissempire
Poet Jester
Is there going to be a vote on this, because i feel it is the best idea i've seen yet. Also, is there going to be a legislative or not?
Knightlancer
Chieftain
Swissempire said:
I aske Alpha a question like this not too long ago, there'll be a vote as soon as they decide on the layout of the Constitutioin and Code of Laws, they're tying to figure out what goes where.
-KL
Stilgar08
Emperor
Alphawolf said:
So you need Internet-access while playing IF you're in the triumvirate, don't you? You might not need to PLAY online, but you need direct contact to the other members of the triumvirate (tri from now on for me... - I'm a slacker!). Demands just pop up and you can't save just like that...
Another possibility would be to allow reloading of the last save before a demand comes up... (I mean you save after you did everything and BEFORE the AI has it's turns - basically when you have to press enter to begin the next round...)
Disadvantage: We might change the future and the demand doesn't show up after reload...
Or am I wrong? Is the AI always going the same course after reloading? I don't know-I'm in a dilemma. Can someone enlighten me?*idea added on bottom of this post...
On a technical note: Is it possible to auto-save the game after EVERY turn and not only after every 4 turns??
Sorry for inconvenience but I don't really like your change here. It would give the DP too much power, IMHO... He could always go on and say he wasn't able to get the other tri members... I would suggest to change it back...
Agreed on this one!!!
If we do it like I proposed it's not a problem I think because if people don't get up and accept they're simply not in the vote...
I mean that every citizen should have the power to nominate another citizen for a position in the government - no pure "self-nominating only" positions.
Appointed positions in the government are different though!
Good!
It's "Bundestag"
and it was "Reichstag" in the old days (not the good old days, that's for sure!) Back to topic: I'm glad you agree! Thanks! 
Basically there's one more person involved than necessary, IMO. IMO the duties of the secretary of the interior are not so much that the president couldn't handle it himself... But I noticed different opinions on this one and would welcome everyone's thoughts...
You wanted to talk with someone about this, AFAIR (as far as I remember). I would like to know with whom you're discussing this?? Maybe with somebody on a bench in a lonesome park and both of you wearing trenchcoats??
I opened another thread dealing with judicial branch.. Gimme some time. I'll get back to you
Don't tell me you don't learn from playing PC-games!
You'll might have the same discussions when the DP himselfs wants workers... The need for a secretary of the Interior isn't because of that...
Thanks!
I'll try to bring some light into the judicial branch in the next days but I'm not sure I'll manage...
could you please explain what you mean how it should work (p.m. me or in the judicial-thread, if possible...)
Cheers,
Stilgar
*idea: concerning procedure: how about this for handling: establish a way the save has to be handled (and implement it in the CoS (Code of standards) suggested by DaveShack: first, say the secretary of the state gets the save, then the secretary of war and last the president. Hereby the DP would have the last word and international affairs have been done before the Sec. of war moves his troops... That is if the tri isn't available altogether at the same time.
Pro: no need for availability, possibility to poll important stuff while being in one turn...
Con: Maybe it slows the handling too much, I don't know...
In Civ3, the autosave is after you've already replied to the opponent's demands. I'm not sure if it happens this way in Civ4 or if the autosave is before the demand. Someone could either run an experiment and post the result, or ask in the general discussion or strategy forum.
You can autosave every turn by looking in My Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\CivilizationIV.ini for these lines
In the past we have given direction in advance on how to respond to any demands. This makes the job more interesting for whomever is in charge of that. So far in my games I have not had any wars declared on me straight out of the demand screen, but it does impact foreign relations negatively to refuse.
Also there are a lot more things which can be demanded, like breaking current deals with other civs, declaring war on someone the requestor is not at war with, making peace, changing civics, and changing state religion!
It's tradition for the DP to have all powers which have not been legally instructed in advance. This gives the DP something to do other than robotically follow instructions. If you don't trust a DP then don't elect him/her.
The special nomination and election processes in this proposal wig me out big time. I would like to stick with all (or at least most) offices being elected every term instead of phasing in, nominations being totally open for anyone to post a nomination, just like we've done it in the past. As I read some of the nomination things in the proposal, if the person responsible for gathering nominations doesn't want someone in the office, they just blackball that person and leave them out of the list.
I would like the judicial branch to be defined at the higher constitution level. The other leadership positions would be defined at the Code of Laws layer. Thanks for getting a start on the judiciary, it will help move things along.
You can autosave every turn by looking in My Documents\My Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\CivilizationIV.ini for these lines
Code:
; Specify the number of turns between autoSaves. 0 means no autosave.
AutoSaveInterval = 1In the past we have given direction in advance on how to respond to any demands. This makes the job more interesting for whomever is in charge of that. So far in my games I have not had any wars declared on me straight out of the demand screen, but it does impact foreign relations negatively to refuse.
Also there are a lot more things which can be demanded, like breaking current deals with other civs, declaring war on someone the requestor is not at war with, making peace, changing civics, and changing state religion!
It's tradition for the DP to have all powers which have not been legally instructed in advance. This gives the DP something to do other than robotically follow instructions. If you don't trust a DP then don't elect him/her.
The special nomination and election processes in this proposal wig me out big time. I would like to stick with all (or at least most) offices being elected every term instead of phasing in, nominations being totally open for anyone to post a nomination, just like we've done it in the past. As I read some of the nomination things in the proposal, if the person responsible for gathering nominations doesn't want someone in the office, they just blackball that person and leave them out of the list.
I would like the judicial branch to be defined at the higher constitution level. The other leadership positions would be defined at the Code of Laws layer. Thanks for getting a start on the judiciary, it will help move things along.
Alphawolf
Basileus, Founding Father
Before I reply to everyone, CHECK YOUR INBOX DaveShack! Specifically the message I sent on the 19th and the one today.
-the Wolf
-the Wolf
Stilgar08
Emperor
DaveShack said:
As far as I see it this has changed and it has to be adressed when it happens and the demands have a much wider variability IMO That's what I meant...
If you don't trust a DP then don't elect him/her.
Well and when I vote someone else and the other one wins, bad luck then or what??? Nope, not my piece of cake. I'd like to have a word in what the DP does, even if I'm not DP, just like in RL: I don't wanna vote every few years and then forget about politics and decisions....
Well, what was about this "fresh start" debate in the beginning of this DG?? When has that been taken back? I disagree and think we SHOULD change things.. Again:
Stilgar
Alphawolf
Basileus, Founding Father
Stilgar08 said:
If I answered that I would have to kill you.
The DP doesn't get worker he or she will just have to get over it. It's one think to say we don't want an automaton for a DP, but what powers will the DP have? Will they have the power to change the orders given to them by an elected official if they don't then they are an automaton. For this reason I believe the DP should either understand that they do as told or a member of the government should be the DP.
-the Wolf
Stilgar08 said:Well, what was about this "fresh start" debate in the beginning of this DG?? When has that been taken back? I disagree and think we SHOULD change things.. Again:
It meant that I wanted ideas to be discussed, and being open to choosing good new ideas to incorporate in the rules. That doesn't mean that I'm willing to go along with every proposal though.
Alphawolf
Basileus, Founding Father
Once again DaveShack I need to ask you to check your inbox.
-the Wolf
-the Wolf
Black_Hole
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2004
- Messages
- 3,424
I don't like the Judicial Branch... We should have a Judge Advocate and Public Defender instead of 2 associate justices
Alphawolf
Basileus, Founding Father
Ignore the judicial branch here, the other one is already in the constitution. I'll but up the version 4.0 by Noon tomorrow.
-the Wolf
-the Wolf
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Since we all voted for having political parties, in a sort of Parliamentarian model, we should respect that decision by allocating a certain set of laws to political parties to decide. Then we may see that political parties may set up coalition governments, and we get tne needed political horsetrading that may make this demogame great, and the opposition is free to contest government decisions throughout the government period.
The problem with so many demogames, is the fallibility of the simplistic popularity contest for offices and no holistic program planning.
Political parties should simplify the consensus-building, as in parliamentarian states, and not deepen disagreements.
For example a political party should set up a platform for the next term (possibly based on its core program) including the following:
Long term research plan
Civic policy
Choice of religion in state
Fundamental slider policy (Sci vs. Lux, vs- Gold)
A basic foreign and defense policy the party can negotiate from
One thing is certain, we cannot use the old Civ3 demogame structure in full.
The problem with so many demogames, is the fallibility of the simplistic popularity contest for offices and no holistic program planning.
Political parties should simplify the consensus-building, as in parliamentarian states, and not deepen disagreements.
For example a political party should set up a platform for the next term (possibly based on its core program) including the following:
Long term research plan
Civic policy
Choice of religion in state
Fundamental slider policy (Sci vs. Lux, vs- Gold)
A basic foreign and defense policy the party can negotiate from
One thing is certain, we cannot use the old Civ3 demogame structure in full.
Stilgar08
Emperor
Provolution said:
First of all: We didn't all vote for political parties, it was just a majority, but I don't wanna be picky about this (Ok, I AM picky about this!
).Secondly we agreed that political parties should be allowed but there was a consensus that it shouldn't be mandatory to be in a party in order to get an office. You could do it all on your own as an individual as well...
That's important: If you want to form a citizen-group or become a member of the citizen-group which represents a party, that's all fine. But there won't be votes about "parties" it will always be about the individuals who run for office... If you and your party-members agree that you are a voting-block, go ahead, set up a candidate and people may decide... (If your block will get too powerful I will fight that but we'll see...
)So we don't need to allocate the power of parties in the CoL in my opinion.. For me as a member of the DSP and the IIP (one important thing is these are not voting-blocks!) parties are just another sort of citizen groups...
You can decide how you want your citizengroup/party to work and if you find enough believers you can do that, but I strongly feel there shouldn't be more power to parties than to individuals...
Alphawolf
Basileus, Founding Father
Provolution said:
I disagree with this for several reasons. One, this punishes people who do not join parties. Also Political Parties should not be allowed to decide laws on their own: they do not represent every citizen; and if political parties are treated equally even though they have different numbers of members this makes some citizens more equal than other; but should the parties be treated by their number of members, it will breed resentment and envy within the parties. Also the idea that political parties should be given a role in creating the law is contrary to the very idea of Democracy itself. In any Democracy the citizen or individual is the holder of sovereignty and willing gives that sovereignty to the government, creating a legitimate government; to give this power to political parties ignores the sovereignty of the citizens and relegates them to mere number to be fought over by the parties to gain more power. I also doubt if party politics will decrease divisions and end popularity contests.
-the Wolf
Nomad Bryce
Innovian UU Cannon Turtle
We should give governors control of worked spaces and creation of specialists
