 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
I have to say, I think these ideas are getting far to complex. As we've learned before in most areas of 'Poly, the simpler things get and keep the most members.
As for Archaic's idea, if the elected officials decide everything, what do the rest of the faction do? If we're going to retain members, we need to have input at every level from all members. That's why we had referendums and debates. If you take the majority of those away, what does the common member do? Nothing, or just advises and debates, they don't have any input on anything. It's not a method condusive to keeping members.
I like the governors idea, though that's for the late game, as with under 5 bases, there's no point having governors. With governor's of bases, we could do, though it would get very complicated and would mean completely uncoordinated build-orders. I think simplicity is needed, and after a lot of changes, I think near the end of ACDG1 we got pretty close to the best way to run it. Yes, it needs changes, but I think systems that complicated, with only voting if you live in that base, leaves you open to rogue votes (or removes the secrecy of the ballot) as well as making it too complicated for new members. It was daunting when I joined, how it worked, I really don't want to make it so daunting we don't get new active members.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
They weren't irrelevant polls. Every time SE settings were to change, sliders altered, techs researched, diplomacy conducted, bases to be founded and even on strategy for movement of units and build orders, there was a poll. This was the main outlet for people to get involved. Now I admit the latter two aren't needed, we can allow build orders and movement of units to be decided by the officials, and politicians can be elected on certain platforms for them.
However having the officials having the power to do what they want brings us many problems, besides not getting non-elected members involved:
What if an official doesn't give orders?
What if an official decides to do something completely different after being elected?
The believeability - would any council allow a fundamental change in political system (From Demo to Pol State, for example), declaring war on a neighbour, or changing the entire economic system to be decided by one person? No, that would be a matter for a vote.
In the CyCons, we had 3 catagories for how important an action was. Minor actions, such as terraforming, unit movement, etc. we decided by the official in question, or if no orders given, decided by the turnplayer. Blanket actions are ones that can be polled for a general strategy, but not to be polled for each time, such as military strategies, standard tech trades and advanced terraforming, like boreholes. Major actions must be polled each time, and covers signing pacts/treaties/truces/vendettas, research, SE changes and constitutional changes.
This was a consitution for a smaller faction, so just had 4 officials and was based on DE's and DBTS's ACDG1 version.
In short, polls did matter to people, as they could have direct impact, not just debate, on the way the faction was run. To have one person deciding to start a war, change the rules or the political system, just seems way to far to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
I have to say, I think these ideas are getting far to complex. As we've learned before in most areas of 'Poly, the simpler things get and keep the most members. |
My perception may be skewed as I'm busy with politics about every day, but what's so complex about my proposal?  Surely about all Apolytoners live in countries with a parliament, government and local councils, and therefore can guess without much explanation what each official is responsible for. It's also a middle-way between giving every participant a voice, and giving officials some room to do something according to Archaic's request.
quote:
Yes, it needs changes, but I think systems that complicated, with only voting if you live in that base, leaves you open to rogue votes (or removes the secrecy of the ballot) |
Rogue votes? How do you mean? And regarding removing the secrecy of ballot in governor elections, won't about everyone publically show support for a party anyway?
Last edited by Maniac on 29-03-2005 at 05:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
My perception may be skewed as I'm busy with politics about every day, but what's so complex about my proposal? Surely about all Apolytoners live in countries with a parliament, government and local councils, and therefore can guess without much explanation what each official is responsible for. It's all a middle-way between giving every participant a voice, and giving officials some room to do something according to Archaic's request. |
Well, to be in a particular base/region to vote in a particular poll. Moreover, it means candidates must be part of a party to stand, something many people choose not to have before. It's a lot more complex, voting only in specific elections, having parties elected then deciding roles, voting for a party system rather than a candidate for each position. The system was complicated enough last time, having those things added makes it moreso. We know from forum games and from the last DG that the simpler games get and retain far more members. Your proposal is not horrendously complicated, but is far more complicated than necessary for a DG. Moreover it forces parties on anyone who wishes to stand.
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
Rogue votes? How do you mean? And regarding removing the secrecy of ballot in governor elections, won't about everyone publically show support for a party anyway? |
Rogue votes being people who live in other cities/regions voting in the poll for that region. And not necessarily, some people may like to play by pledging support to a party and voting for a different one, or may not want to be tied to who they support. That's why voting's normally anonymous.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Rogue votes being people who live in other cities/regions voting in the poll for that region. And not necessarily, some people may like to play by pledging support to a party and voting for a different one, or may not want to be tied to who they support. That's why voting's normally anonymous. |
Regarding rogue votes, I was thinking that for regions there wouldn't be polls, but that everyone would just say who they voted for. Yeah I know, this would mean no secrecy...
Anyway, I just thought this governor system could prevent a situation of a group with 51% support gaining all governor seats, and could give people a chance to build a region according to their own preferences, eg building no boreholes. So I had you and Aurillion in mind when I thought of this.  In ACDG1 everyone who wanted one always got a governor seat simply because there were too few active people to fill all positions. But if we have more active people than positions (one can always dream ) this may no longer be the case and minority opinions might not be represented.
But whatever, if you know a simplier system that would still represent minority opinions, I'm happy with that of course. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
Anyway, I just thought this governor system could prevent a situation of a group with 51% support gaining all governor seats, and could give people a chance to build a region according to their own preferences, eg building no boreholes. So I had you and Aurillion in mind when I thought of this. In ACDG1 everyone who wanted one always got a governor seat simply because there were too few active people to fill all positions. But if we have more active people than positions (one can always dream ) this may no longer be the case and minority opinions might not be represented. |
I agree with your aim, though I think having voting not necessarily by parties means you can have regions with different characteristics, as we had last time. And we didn't have a region for everyone, I lost Akiria at one point.
I'd love to use that idea, and for governors I think it's great. But governors are later in the game, as I think per region rather than per base is much better, for coordination and as what is one bases land and what's anothers? Could lead to all sorts of arguments. A region gives a chance for the region to have it's own characteristics, like lack of boreholes or swiss cheese, for example.
At the beginning, however, I think it's going to far to have base governors. Have that done by an official when we only have a few bases.
quote:
Originally posted by Maniac
But whatever, if you know a simplier system that would still represent minority opinions, I'm happy with that of course. |
I'd say individual candidates. That way minority positions, when there's a strong candidate, get represented in the government. As we found in the last one, small parties still won official positions.
I agree with giving more power to officials, however I think there still needs to be a lot of involvement for others, as we'll only have 8 or 9 positions at the start, and we want to manage to keep far more than 8 or 9 members. Having 20 members and 8 or 9 positions means we need some way of getting those 11/12 others involved, and I think having to hold polls for things is one way, along with debate. The elected official still gets to decide whether and when to poll, and has considerable weight, as well as deciding on most decisions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Archaic
|
 |
Washed up SMAC/X University Specialist
Nov 2001
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
They weren't irrelevant polls. Every time SE settings were to change, sliders altered, techs researched, diplomacy conducted, bases to be founded and even on strategy for movement of units and build orders, there was a poll. This was the main outlet for people to get involved. Now I admit the latter two aren't needed, we can allow build orders and movement of units to be decided by the officials, and politicians can be elected on certain platforms for them. |
Politicians might weigh up the opinion of the uninformed masses depending on the situation, but those surveys are only guides, not orders to the politician.
quote:
However having the officials having the power to do what they want brings us many problems, besides not getting non-elected members involved:
What if an official doesn't give orders?
What if an official decides to do something completely different after being elected? |
I fail to see the problem here. What if a politician in game does something politicians do in real life all the time? Your point?
quote:
The believeability - would any council allow a fundamental change in political system (From Demo to Pol State, for example), declaring war on a neighbour, or changing the entire economic system to be decided by one person? No, that would be a matter for a vote. |
A modern democracy? Maybe not. But an older form of democracy, which you could expect society to revert to (remember, 1 point of pop supposedly represents a mere 100,000 citizens), yes. That person would be the elected leader.
quote:
In short, polls did matter to people, as they could have direct impact, not just debate, on the way the faction was run. To have one person deciding to start a war, change the rules or the political system, just seems way to far to me. |
Most people IRL have no direct impact outside of their votes and fundraising on the behalf of their preferred officials anyway. Again, what's your point?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Archaic
I fail to see the problem here. What if a politician in game does something politicians do in real life all the time? Your point? |
Because it's not condusive to a pleasant game. Yes, backstabbings and breaking manifesto's is realistic, but then's so assassination, and we're not advocating that. This is about having fun and playing as a team.
One person having the ability to do what they want in their area means the only direct effect people have is voting and debating. That isn't enough to keep people interested in the game, and to keep membership higher than the 8 or 9 people who have positions. We need to keep at least 15-20 people for it to be fun and a proper democracy game. That's why we need direct involvement from non-elected citizens.
quote:
Originally posted by Archaic
Most people IRL have no direct impact outside of their votes and fundraising on the behalf of their preferred officials anyway. Again, what's your point? |
Because this isn't real life. This is about keeping people interested, which means keeping them involved. This game is about fun. That's my point.
For a DG to be fun, we need as many members as possible, at least 15 or so. Making the 8 or 9 elected people the only ones with any power means we'll soon be left with those 8 or 9 people. Even factions in team DGs poll for some things, as they need the opinion of the faction. It's about playing as a team, not doing your own bit and leaving everyone else to do theirs, and that means the faction decides when it goes to war or changes the way it runs, not one member.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
Right now, it seems a single faction DG, due to manpower requirements.
As for the faction:
Voltaire has pushed that we should make a generic faction, which will eventually be defined by its members.
Tassadar has pushed that we should choose a faction, which will allow for role-playing.
I favor a generic faction, because our faction will become 'defined' as the game progresses.
I would favor editing the alpha.txt file and beefing up the AI, be it through humans helping out, some tweaks, bonuses. I don't want to face a moronic AI. A merely stupid one would be sufficient.
quote:
This is the organogram I see:
- Faction Leader (turn player)
- Other gov. members (intelligence, army, diplomaty, the stuff...)
- Parliament, or inner council, or whatever we call it (this consists of all participants.)
- Base Governors (for those participants willing to handle bases) |
I agree with that governmental structure.
I would like the 'territories' to be a group of people that control a group of bases and its non-military units. Furthermore, as the nation expands, territories may be split up, along with its members. We might eventually end up with everyone having a few bases.
Also furthermore, I would like there be a way that the central government to 'tax' the 'territories', in order to get military units manufactured and the like. I could see this field being a major one for debate 
We might even permit bartering between the different territories.
Now, lets start deciding things 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
 |
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:37
|
|
A bypassers opinion:
If I have to choose between poll or debate I choose poll and might add some words as arguments why.
The simple reasons are:
1.Debate does not give you executive power, at least it tends to not give.
The opinions of newest/more inexpierenced members are often ignored (face the truth!) by two simple reasons:
a - because someone knows how to do better
b - because someone pretends to know how to do better.
The latter option is what people find VERY annoying.
And it happens from time to time.
In my Gaian team expierence I had silenced two persons, namely livid imp and Net Warrior (apologies for them) for time of 2 weeks at least.
At that moment it seemed to me that my analysis and strategical idea was better.
But what if person disagrees?
What if at the ends with me being wrong?
It leaves him/her in great frustration/anger and it washes away the feeling of democracy.
2.Poll is quick.
Just one click and you're done!
If it requests you to argument, you write a sentence or two instead of arguing for PAGES as we're doing here (see it?).
These pages have no real use for most participants as:
a - They're pretty hard to read and to keep up to date with em.
b - Mostly they turn out as an effort of people who have lots of time and are posting on a 30 second basis.
Many good ideas slip unnoticed that way as if 2 people argue as you, Drogue and Archaic are doing now, they tend to read the opponents post, not bypassers (read - mine).
We could even make a houserule that polls are not a place to debate - each voter just states why he voted so and there's an additional debate thread for debates on opinions posted in poll thread.
That could keep arguments out of flames..
And very easy to access, read, think about and then go to debate thread and argue.
In general polls might reduce the quality of gameplay as someone might know how to do better, but not have the skills to explain why the team should do so.
But isn't it the main principle of democratical politics?
If you have a good idea, you have to explain it good (Remember Hitler? His ideas we're maybe not so good, but he knew howto explain.. ), so people can read your statement, think about and then vote.
I would even insist that each poll starter collects these different opinions and requests a hort description of each of those opinons from people who expressed them, and puts these short descriptions in the starting post of the poll.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
A bypassers opinion:
If I have to choose between poll or debate I choose poll and might add some words as arguments why.
The simple reasons are:
1.Debate does not give you executive power, at least it tends to not give.
The opinions of newest/more inexpierenced members are often ignored (face the truth!) by two simple reasons:
a - because someone knows how to do better
b - because someone pretends to know how to do better.
The latter option is what people find VERY annoying.
And it happens from time to time.
In my Gaian team expierence I had silenced two persons, namely livid imp and Net Warrior (apologies for them) for time of 2 weeks at least.
At that moment it seemed to me that my analysis and strategical idea was better.
But what if person disagrees?
What if at the ends with me being wrong?
It leaves him/her in great frustration/anger and it washes away the feeling of democracy.
2.Poll is quick.
Just one click and you're done!
If it requests you to argument, you write a sentence or two instead of arguing for PAGES as we're doing here (see it?).
These pages have no real use for most participants as:
a - They're pretty hard to read and to keep up to date with em.
b - Mostly they turn out as an effort of people who have lots of time and are posting on a 30 second basis.
Many good ideas slip unnoticed that way as if 2 people argue as you, Drogue and Archaic are doing now, they tend to read the opponents post, not bypassers (read - mine).
.....
blah blah blah blah blah
.....
I would even insist that each poll starter collects these different opinions and requests a hort description of each of those opinons from people who expressed them, and puts these short descriptions in the starting post of the poll. |
I agree with binTravkin's points
Regarding power to make decisions placed in the hands of an active few versus the 'Parliament', I may have a compromise.
Periodically, we will have 'census' of active members. Having all of the participants in the elections be considered "the active members of Parliament" would ensure election turnout as well.
If a vote on an issue does not garner the votes of >=50% of the active members within a specified period of days (Maybe 4 or 5, less if advance warning of the impending vote is given), the Parliament will be considered 'uninterested' and the decision, and it will fall to the officer / executive responsible for that type of decision.
quote:
We could even make a houserule that polls are not a place to debate - each voter just states why he voted so and there's an additional debate thread for debates on opinions posted in poll thread. |
Seperate debate and polling threads are good.
I see that the activity has died down here, I guess that means people don't care, or that there is less disagreement.
Last edited by arginine on 05-04-2005 at 05:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
I wish to put foward the possibility of our faction bonuses changing depending on the style of gameplay, the type of government we run and/or the ruling party. I think the mods might some fun with that. They might even alter AI relations depending on the type of faction we are at the time.
I don't know how to implement this...
Ex1: we pump out boreholes, build no eco damage control structures and many bases pour out toxic dump, our factional bonus then becomes -1 planet, +1 industry.
Ex2: The aggressive parties come to power, declare war on a few weak neighbors, infrastructure building stops as our bases churn our weapons. Factional bonus becomes +1 morale, +1 police, -1 support, -1 eff.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chaos Theory
This is called Social Engineering (more or less). |
No, I was refering to the faction 'bonus'. If we have an originally generic faction that will develop a 'culture', it might be interesting for our faction to get bonuses, which reflect our faction's 'culture'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
Alright, it was a suggestion / something to consider, seeing how the we have a to be determined ideology faction. It would be sort of like karma for good and evil actions in some computer games. (ex: galactic civilizations???)
What is a switching-challenge ACDG?
Lets get around to deciding changes we want to make to the alpha.txt. I think choppers and planes should be tripled in cost. I'd also like hovertanks, AA and SAM moved foward some. This was discussed at the beginning of the current ACDG. We could dredge up some of those old suggestions.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-03-2005 21:23
|