 |
Revolution?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes. We need this. |
   |
30 |
43.48% |
| No. I like immature kids who can't get things done. I want this game to go on for years with 1 turn per turnchat. |
   |
25 |
36.23% |
| Abstain. |
   |
14 |
20.29% |
| Total: |
69 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Uber you now have a choice :
- You can continue this revolution like you begun, with bias, insults, and political pettiness. This will lead to nowhere, except some people will leave the DemoGame because of the constant infighting (and we don't need it, with the dare consequences of the constitutional rage) 
- You can suggest your idea in a prepoll debate (NOT an immediate poll, your idea isn't refined enough), and refine it with others. This way, we'll have a satisfactory cabinet change. I'd like to remind the excellent court experience : Trip's first project was much worse than what we have now, because several brains worked on it for weeks. 
I agree changes can be needed in our government structure. In the future I doubt the usefulness of the minister of Imperial Expansion for example (when there are no places left to settle).
Even if I'm pessimistic about their outcome, your idea has merits. It culd probably win in an official amendment poll.
Our system is not in ruins as you like to yell, because it's very adaptable. Should most people feel our governmental structure is unsatisfactory, they'll vote for another in a poll, according to our rules, if someone provides a complete project.
BTW Uber, something that bugs me : you pretend you were calling for Punkbass' impeachment for weeks, and I believe you. But you never made the concrete thing (a poll with 2/3 requirement) to get things done. Did you expect someone else to do this kind of things at your place ?
To get things done here, we need a bit of organization.... Saying "it would be good if..." doesn't get anything done. Making a poll or a complete project does.
Just look at the whole "link to embassy of Phoenatica" thing : we got it only after a petition has begun. By the same token, Plan Gold could have been a dream if an official poll hasn't been done, because our officials had other plans in mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Uber you now have a choice :
- You can continue this revolution like you begun, with bias, insults, and political pettiness. This will lead to nowhere, except some people will leave the DemoGame because of the constant infighting (and we don't need it, with the dare consequences of the constitutional rage)
- You can suggest your idea in a prepoll debate (NOT an immediate poll, your idea isn't refined enough), and refine it with others. This way, we'll have a satisfactory cabinet change. I'd like to remind the excellent court experience : Trip's first project was much worse than what we have now, because several brains worked on it for weeks.
I agree changes can be needed in our government structure. In the future I doubt the usefulness of the minister of Imperial Expansion for example (when there are no places left to settle).
Even if I'm pessimistic about their outcome, your idea has merits. It culd probably win in an official amendment poll.
Our system is not in ruins as you like to yell, because it's very adaptable. Should most people feel our governmental structure is unsatisfactory, they'll vote for another in a poll, according to our rules, if someone provides a complete project.
BTW Uber, something that bugs me : you pretend you were calling for Punkbass' impeachment for weeks, and I believe you. But you never made the concrete thing (a poll with 2/3 requirement) to get things done. Did you expect someone else to do this kind of things at your place ?
To get things done here, we need a bit of organization.... Saying "it would be good if..." doesn't get anything done. Making a poll or a complete project does.
Just look at the whole "link to embassy of Phoenatica" thing : we got it only after a petition has begun. By the same token, Plan Gold could have been a dream if an official poll hasn't been done, because our officials had other plans in mind. |
That is rational thought That is good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darkness' Edge
|
|
I don't see how getting into wars of insults is going to solve anything. As it appears, the game does need changes - the results of this poll do show this. So perhaps it's time to get over our differences, stop arguing and get to work on fixing the system...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
At the end of the day, it's still just a game. Let's just calm down and try to act without attacking each other. I'm all for reform if it makes this any more fun than it currently is (which wouldn't be something so hard to do at this point), but a complete revolution (with the replacement of ALL the ministers) is a bit much. AFAIK, the ministers who don't do their jobs correctly/intelligently are in the minority.
Like I said, there's no need to get pissed off and declare a full blown revolution, because it's still just a game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
Uber,
With only one post, you have already obtained a lot ; among the many answers you received, some where purely dialectical and could not help, but others where plainly constructive. It is now generally accepted that changes must be made, and the proposals offered by Spiffor and Sir Ralph are completely in line with what you want, and they are widely supported.
In fact, if you don?t make of this a personal affair, and if you were given reasonable guaranties that the changes urgently needed will be enforced within, let say two weeks, there seems to be no serious reason not to come back within the safe borders of the law.
Incidentally, we have heard no objection to the construction of a huge arc de triomphe devoted to your person in case of a brilliant success in the battle of Paris.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
|
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Davout,
Uber himself is the one who has pushed most strongly for laws to "serve the best interests of the potents" as you say. Are you unaware that he is one of them? And that he, more than any other, pushed most strongly for not making polls binding on ministers?
Simply put, I find your conclusion that the laws are entirely conceived to serve the best interests of the potents to be faulty. If that was so, what would it benefit Uber himself to challenge the laws that serve his interests?
|
It just that Uber implicitly recognizes that he was wrong ! There is probably some good in the ultimate depth of his evil soul.
The best interests of the potent where suggested to me by the children, the mothers, the wifes, the fathers, the husbands who where murdered by legal orders made by legal authorities under the pop rush policy. The speech delivered by your President in those occasions adds disgust to crime, and demonstrate the monstrous hypocrisy of your so called democratic laws. You said faulty ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
I will offer this:
The law was and continues to be conceived with the best interests of the Democracy Game in mind. This is not a solo game, it is a community. As such, the laws are intended to ensure and increase fairness, smoothness, and fun for ALL participants. It is a balancing act - for instance, ensuring that all citizens are given a voice (fairness) is sometimes at odds with alowing ministers to get on with the game (smoothness), and for some citizens, more fun means more involvement in decision-making while for other citizens, more fun means playing turns quicker even if it results in decreased involvement.
That the law sometimes fails to achieve its objectives, is not a failure of intent. Created by people, from all around the world, with different goals, perspectives, and philosophies (control freak totalitarians to lax laissez-faire libertarians), it's a wonder we've agreed on what we have so far. That we have, is a remarkable achievement, and one that should not be discarded at whim because of a bad experience with one turnchat.
Every game has rules, to ensure consistency and to regulate behaviour according to acceptable norms. The rules, though sometimes appearing overly complex, are what allow the game to function at all. Without rules (written and unwritten), anyone could do anything - including playing ahead - and acceptable behaviour would not be regulated according to fairness but according to personality, popularity, personal connections, and power (what they can get away with). Only under the law is there the potential for all to be treated equitably. It may fail at times, but without it, there would be even more chaos and injustice.
When you've got this many people all with their own opinions on how the game should be played and more joining every week, we need consistent rules on how to change those previously agreed upon rules in a fair and smooth manner, namely, the Amendment procedure. For people to call for revolution when they are displeased, overhauling the system according to their personal tastes while deliberately discarding the careful consensus achieved by the community over the past three months, is inflammatory, reckless, and not befitting a minister of government who has a duty to serve the interests of the public who elected him.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
|
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Davout,
What was the result of the pop-rush poll?
Not that it matters, since Ministers are not bound to obey official polls by the COL! but that was democratically decided upon. At the time, people felt the ministers could be trusted - and for the most part, they are a trustworthy lot. Also, forcing obeisance to polls may make the ministerial jobs more difficult as the public may not be as acutely aware of changing circumstances as the ministers are.
But would I like this amended? Yes! of course, but there hasn't been sufficient public support for this yet.
I was typing away so I didn't see your message, but the one I just posted above shows that sometimes, the fairness of giving equal voice to all citizens must be balanced with the unfairness of transferring increased power and authority to the ministers - in order to allow the game to function smoothly (enough to maintain interest and fun). This may allow authorities with increased powers to abuse those powers, but that is why we are still trying to formulate impeachment laws to guide in the removal of corrupt officials. Do contribute if you are interested. See the Impeachment thread. It is all a balancing act, and sometimes, such horrors as experienced with the devastating unprovoked surprise attack on our American neighbours, or the atrocities committed towards our own people in slave labour, do happen - whether by the bloodlust of the public, or the goal-oriented fixations of our ministers. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tassadar5000
This is so sad. I'm sorry, but when everything starts ripping apart.....Did any of the other democracy games in either Poly or CFC do this? Why is it happening here?!
I'm beginning to highly doubt this demo game. It seems as if theirs arguement after arguement about almost everything. The game has almost boiled down to internal political manuvering and has become so boring and unfun that I almost see no reason to stay other than to try to amend things which probably cannot be amended.
I'm sorry, but I've put quite some time and effort into this demo game (although not as much as other people, I still have my fair share) and to see it all just rip apart because of some turnchat or some party or some poll just really annoys me. Should I continue to stay here knowing full well that something else is just going to happen, something else exactly like this?
Instead of calling for revolutions and acting immature about someone who was acting immature, lets try to pass RESOLUTIONS and REFORM in a PEACEFUL manner. If we all continue to insult each other the democracy game seems more like a political debate on the US Fox News Channel and it becomes so unfun.
If we try to change things in a way thats 1) immature, 2) unconsitituional and 3) just plain rude, we lose focus on what the demo game is about. Its about uniting apolytonians who like civ3 to play it with other apolytonians who like civ3. If theres something wrong, then polietly post about it. No need to start insulting each other. It really makes whoever is throwing it look just as bad (if not worse) then the person their insulting.
So in short, uber shut the **** up, everyone get along with each other, and lets work together to make this demo game fun again. This certainly isnt fun. Writing this post isnt fun. Having to write the post isnt fun. So just STOP flinging mud and insults. Please. I'm sick and tired of it and I'm sure a lot of other people are as well.
Sorry if I sounded a little.....frustrated.
Tassadar |
exactly. endless debates on issues that probably wont be amended anyway. upheaval is the only way. and it saves a lot of time.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 13:14
May I suggest we all move to Alpha Centauri and start a brand new future? Everything will be much better there.
) . There does need to be change, just not rushed through in the heat of the moment. And it needs to be refinement, not throwing away all the work that has been done and starting again.
).
|