 |
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:28
|
|
After reading Dominae's resignation, hearing that Togas might be planning to do the same, as well as knowing some of the frictions that have been going on in the team, I feel it is necessary to stop and reflect on some things before it gets worse.
To begin with, WE ARE A TEAM, yes, that mean technically every one of our 80+ members should have a say in what is being done. Sadly some times I feel this doesn't happen either because 1) people do not involve themselves enough or 2) we have created a government system which does not make an incentive to do so.
For that reason, I think there is a problem with permanence, that is, assuming no one asks for a CoC, the same people will be running the show from here till the game ends. No eleccions, no participatory suffrage, lately we have even been short on polls regarding decision-making. We have made it clear that many decisions are made turing the daily chat sessions (most of which are just chatter... fun chatter mind you). However, there might be people who for some reason or another may not be able to attend the chat sessions, and it is not fair that they miss this aspect of the decision-making process. Some people just pop up on ocassion, others suddenly contribute and then fade away. We might not know the reasons why, but the way we run the show might be a factor...
I had been tinkering with the idea as of late of having some sort of rotative government, that we elect consuls or ministers which rotate for certain time periods. For example as a new consul is elected, the oldest drops out, so at all times there are 2 of the last 3 consuls which will guarantee continuity in policies. Same with the Ministers perhaps. Many people might be afraid to hold office now because holding office implies practically knocking off the guy already there, or waiting until he resigns. That, my friends, is a VERY POOR incentive to ask for participation...
I would like to hear what you people have to say about this before it gets worse. I for one hope that from this situation a better team emerges. Good leaders aren't those which don't make mistakes, they are those which learn from them and don't repeat them. So, let's be constructive, let's be creative, let's make this the team we want it to be! 
Now for some humor, in Dominae's resignation thread I mentioned that we sometimes sound like the Civ2 High Council, each of us giving contrasting decisions. This will always happen if we are a true democracy, as everyone has a different idea of how to make this team great, and all opinions, no matter how different should be valued equally. So, I made this little edit of the High Council screen to adecuately protray what goes on in the ISDG...
Last edited by Master Zen on 18-05-2003 at 01:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by civman2000
I think the solution to this is amending the constitution to require senate bills on certain things. Senate bills are provided for in the Constitution and actually have unlimited power (because the consuls must always obey them and there are no real restrictions on theri content). However, I don't think there has been a SINGLE bill proposed in the entire game.
Specifically, I think bills should be required to approve all treaties/declarations of war and other violations of treaties/etc, government changes, and maybe some otehr big major things. It should be highly recommended for otehr things like city placement, using GLs, general areas of exploration, etc.
Also, I think it would be a good idea to have elections every 1 or 2 months. I really don't see why they weren't provided for. |
I disagree about what the first solution should be. I think that a better solution would be for the Consuls to lead more public discussions on our strategy and general direction.
I think that requiring bills for certain things would be an obstacle to keeping the turns moving to the other teams in some circumstances, and that would very definitely lead to animosity towards us if it should happen.
OTOH, greater participation is a goal that we share. I simply feel that our proposed solution would be better suited to our circumstances.
Regular elections might not be a bad thing. I can't remember much of the discussion that went into them not being in the constitution.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aidun
Yes and it is important to keep in ming that the people won't easily adapt to the system, but the system can be easily changed.
|
An increased level of participation by the people who are complaining about the government might solve many problems. If you just who up to vote and neither read nor participate in any of the discussion, are you a productive member of the team?
We need to make what is going on in the game more accessible to those who do not show up every day. This means starting disussions on broad topics (like, "Do we attack CDG?"), and ending them in a vote. Discussions on more specific topics would then follow naturally ("What kind of troops do we need for our attack?).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Aidun, to some extent it is each member's responsibility to participate if they want to feel they are a part of this game. Participation does not mean showing up once in a while because you remembered to check out the ISDG forum. If these types of players want "more power", I have no sympathy because they essentially want to have power without responsibility. The players that put the most work into this game will get the most out of it.
Players like Fried-Psitalon have no official duties in this team. Yet F-P is one of the most vocal members, and dare I say one of the most influential. I believe F-P understands that if he does not make an effort to participate, he will be left out. And he's right.
Different people can contribute in different ways, which is one of the reasons why we need polls on the major issues, because the quieter members may want to do nothing more than vote for what they feel is right. But these people have to keep up-to-date with what's going on! Therefore I believe a big part of the solution is making information more accessible to everyone (instead of doing everything in chat, or employing obscure naming conventions, ahem).
Final thought: I know we all want to have fun above all, but we also want to win. To remain competitive, it is important that all Citizens keep an open mind and listen to the counsel of those who put more effort into this game than others. Myself I have criticized the FAM without really knowing the whole story. If the Consuls or Ministers sound like "they know better", it might just be that they do.
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aidun
|
 |
The Hague, the capital of the civilized world
Nov 2002
time: 06:28
|
|
I agree with you on most of the points.
It is indeed the player's own responsibility if he pareticipates or not. When I joined the C3DG 1 I became very active and not without result: I became regional governor and after that I was twice elected as domestic minister. I could also have continued with roleplaying and not have become RG and minister, like I did before, and voting in the polls, that depended on myself.
The situation is now but not one of a low participation of members, people don't even participate anymore.
When I read the treads of the last days here, I get the feeling that the little participating people don't want more power, but an ear that listens to them, a party leader that speaks for them and a government in which their party is represented. That is participant democracy. What we now have is more like parochial democracy: the people only vote in elections, but that's all.
Winning the game can only be done by keeping people participated. That is a task of the government and I consider the government responsible for an eventual failing interest.
Winning can better be reached by combining a lot of minds that are willing to think together but get too little stimutation to participate.
Don't see this as a harangue, but as an encouragement to do something about the declining interest and participation.
Aidun
Last edited by Aidun on 19-05-2003 at 01:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:28
|
|
I am a Consul, but I have done very little in terms of making decisions for the time - having only once been availabel to aid in decision-making that was done whilst another Consul actually played the turn. I feel I can say without bias that the (playing) Consuls do an amazing job of listening to everyone in the team. At the game start the Consuls were chosen very well, and they have lived up to their responsibilities.
Seeing the private discussions of the Consuls too, it is evident that points made by the team as a whole, or at least the contributing members, are at the forefront of the Consul's minds. They know that if they take a decision that wasn't discussed, or popular, then they had better have an excellent reason for doing so.
Dom and Aidun have great points as ever. The onus is on the citizens to participate - no-one can make you speak up. The Consuls are in the process of doing what we can see to hopefully straighten out what we are doing here and make this place a lot more conducive to open debate.
If everyone works with us, and does what they think will help as well, we will sort out this identity crisis and carry on.
It's not Apolyton without some issues along the way, but that's just a sing of our creativity and intellignece. With everyone's help we can pull ourselves together and WIN.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:28
|
|
Ok, my point of view again, you can't blame things entirely on the system or on the people, so far some people have been saying that "no, the system is wrong, we must change it", the others are saying "no, its the people who don't involve themselves". Both have a bit of truth but neither is entirely correct.
As F-P was brought up, I will use him as an example. F-P is not involved in the SPDG or in any of the PTWDG teams either. On the other hand, many of the dissastisfied people like Aidun are in more than just the ISDG. Those people have ceasted to participate here apparently becuase they must not be finding this as fun as the other games they are involved in. Part of this is personal preference of course (like in my case, I don't find the SPDG that fun, I'm a people person, I need to play against people...) but maybe there is something that we can do as government to make these people feel more at home.
I have said it, the ISDG is being taken TOO seriously. Not in terms of the professionalism in which we are handled in, but in our internal way of doing things. I feel we are too scared of dissent, or discussion, perhaps since we feel so much is at stake (Apolyton's honor) that we can't afford it. Maybe if we start taking things a little lighter (in the political sense), we can encourage more people to participate.
So, IMO, government must change to reflect this, if people still decide not to participate, then so be it, we have found the root of the problem. If they do, then we have made a change for the good.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2003 00:51
, nye good idea 
|