27-05-2003 03:06									#1
	The Big Question: What Do We Really Want? Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I believe this question should be answered before we continue to debate how (and if) we should adjust our Constitution.

WHAT SORT OF GOVERNMENT DO WE WANT?

In my view, there are only 2 legitimate options:

1) Despotism/Oligarchy -- Ignore your feelings on this, because they're merely an overreaction. This team has been run in this fashion since the beginning and it has been run very well. The RP team runs in this style and has excellent team morale. I'm sure other teams are run in this fashion. It is the most efficient form of government, there is no bureaucracy or red tape, there is a central leadership with a single focus and a unified plan of attack because there are less individuals involved to conflict with each other. It's a lean, mean machine that gives ultimate decision making power to the few, and allows the masses to casually participate in the game, and to voice their concerns when needed.

It gives most people very little responsibility, and allows for them to enjoy the game as spectators or casual advisors.

We would certainly allow for CoCs in this form of government. Our biggest task would be picking people who we trust and respect to run the team and then hopeing that they run it well. Giving them the freedom to pick advisors, choose plans, and hoping that they involve the team in most of their decisions.

This form of government ensures that we remain efficient and get our saves played on time. It keeps continuity of leadership and agendas, and allows for players on the team to participate "at their leisure".


2) Representative Demcracy -- Like the Demo Game, just without the Senate. Vote on our leaders, all of them, and divide the power up amongst them to some degree to keep any individual from having too much power. Anyone who wants to get involved runs for office. The players have more direct control over the country and everyone gets involved in debates and discussion. More fresh blood, more new ideas. A larger group of individuals ends up running the team and more people have a direct say-so in what happens.

To deal with the time constraints of the game we would give our Consuls veto powers over the Ministers if there's a conflict, emergency, or improper order and we'd likely make the Consuls also serve as the Court to deal with any other issues. The Consuls would play the turn as instructed by the ministers and woud change the orders only when necessary.


Note: Direct Democracy, where the people as a group make the decisions, was not listed as it is not practicable for this sort of game.


Please debate and vote on this key issue.

--Togas

	27-05-2003 03:12									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Isn't there some form of middle ground between the two? I think that there can be, but it's not a specialty of mine... IO'm more nuts and bolts than political theorist.

E_T

	27-05-2003 03:18									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

There's shades of each in the other and we clearly won't pick a pure Despotism or a pure Representative system. If you want the one that more of a "middle ground" it's the Rep system, as a direct democracy shouldn't even be considered.

But the overall question of what do we really want needs to be addressed. Each has benefits. But before our system can ultimately be designed we need to know which of these two styles the team prefers.

--Togas

	27-05-2003 03:20									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Again I want to adress some feeling that I have and I find important to bing into this discussion.

It is the issue of what we want.

Do we want to play a nice game in which all participate and in which we do things in the democratic way although it is less efficient and sometimes gives bad results?

OR

Do we want to win and therefore give up those pleasures. Then we agree with a low participation, an undemocratic, but efficient form of government which ensures that no mistakes are made?

Please choose among these, we have no other options.

Then we can finally end the discussion about participation.

Aidun

	27-05-2003 03:24									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think a Representative Democracy does sort of fall in between the two in the sense that it is not a "true" democracy in which everything is voted on. I would need to see a specific outline for a Constituion that would allow this level of particiaption/Democracy in our game.

I'm generally happy with our Constituion, but with some minor tweaks to make the minister's elected and to give them a little more power. How much power? I'm not sure. I reserve the right to propose something at a later time as this will require some thought.

I do agree, however, that we should not have a complete Despotism/Oligarchy. The reason I have not said anything before is because our Consuls have been listening very closely to people and they do seem to follow the recomendations of the majority for the most part. For what they have been given, to manage this team, the Consuls do a great job. But a change is in order I believe.

	27-05-2003 03:29									#6
	Increase Your PM Length

Aidun's point is well-put.

The people who feel this game is "boring", etc. are either 1) looking for something similar to the SPDG, or 2) are unimpressed with our starting position and therefore do not want to have anything to do with our failure. One type is too competitive, one type is not competitive enough.

The question therefore concerns competitiveness. What we should be asking is: "Do we want to win the ISDG?". If a majority of the people vote Yes, then we cannot run things as in the SPDG, because we would be hurting our chances. We're not playing against the AI here, which we can collectively run into the ground in almost any given game. If a majority of the people vote No (in favor of, I presume, "more democratic fun"), then we should change things to run like the SPDG.

I am under the assumption that most people here want to win (for Apolyton!). Therefore the question of government is clear, in my mind.

If you want Apolyton to win and want to help, you'll participate in this team by whatever means you can find (trust me, there is still plenty of room in the discussions we have). Most of the most dedicated players have some office or another. On the other hand, if you want this game to entertain you, you'll surely be lost in the shuffle.


Dominae

	27-05-2003 04:07									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Aidun Again I want to adress some feeling that I have and I find important to bing into this discussion. It is the issue of what we want. Do we want to play a nice game in which all participate and in which we do things in the democratic way although it is less efficient and sometimes gives bad results? OR Do we want to win and therefore give up those pleasures. Then we agree with a low participation, an undemocratic, but efficient form of government which ensures that no mistakes are made? Please choose among these, we have no other options. Then we can finally end the discussion about participation. Aidun

hi ,

we dont have to give up certain pleasures in order to win , ......

have a nice day

vote ? , thinking about that one

	27-05-2003 04:21									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The only thing I would change is to have a rotative oligarchy, I think I have made this pretty clear in my last posts. The reasons for this is:

1) I hate bureacracy and due to the strict time limit even a representative democracy is not feasable in a multi-player demo game

2) The CoC to remove a Consul or Minister is not a good incentive to do so. When you start a CoC you are immediately giving the impression of starting a small revolution, and most people would not be inclined to do so despite a poor showing by a leader. Well, apparently Dominae doesn't mind but most people probably do, it's psychological.

3) More psychology: a CoC in terms of spirit and morale implies someone is not doing a good job, i.e. there is a "change" being done because someone has failed, whereas an election is a "change" because some has done good. CoC's should only be used in the extreme circumstance of an elected official preforming unsatisfactory.

4) no senate, too bureaucratic although we should start doing more polls, people should also start to participate in the discussions and chats more often (people, join the chat!! it's FUUUN!!). We need a more lighthearted way of viewing this game as it sometimes feels more like a job than something from our spare time. If we can't have fun in the forums, at least we can in the chat (and in the meantime get some decisions done)


So, my proposal is:

To have a rotational system of Consuls. Each serves for a particular length of time (say, 25 turns) and then elections are called for a new consul. The oldest-serving consul leaves his post and the new one enters. Thus, continuity is maintained since 2 of the 3 last consuls are still in service, but elections are frequent: every 25 turns despite the fact each consul actually serves 75 turns.

As for Ministers: perhaps a 50 turn government upon which new elections are called, they can still be re-elected if chosen.

Please discuss.

	27-05-2003 04:44									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The problem with electing ministers... they are advisors to the Consuls. I do not know of any executive form of government where a Prime Minister or President does not pick his own advisors (ministers or cabinet secretaries).

What if the Consuls and the MoI or MoW have a serious disagreement? Whose views prevail? Yes, it says the Consuls, but being at logger heads with an elected official is significantly different from being unable to agree with an appointee.

I think that what we have been doing, polling for the peoples' choice, works well. It does reserve the prerogative of one or more of the Consuls to say 'sorry, I just can't work with this guy, we have to have someone else' while at the same time involving the people in the decision. I think it works.

I agree with terms for Consuls and having one elected per month. I disagree with term limits.

I am not against the Senate continuing as a law making body. I would like to see a mechanism for executive veto or annulment in cases where continuing to follow a law would have clearly negative consequences. Having 4 of the Consuls and the 3 senior ministers agree to veto/annul would be good.

In short, I think we can have strong democratic traditions, while maintaining the power of the executive to get the job done. I think that we can have our cake (fun) and eat it too (win) in these matters.

I am here to win, but fun is required as well.

	27-05-2003 04:57									#10
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither The problem with electing ministers... they are advisors to the Consuls. I do not know of any executive form of government where a Prime Minister or President does not pick his own advisors (ministers or cabinet secretaries). What if the Consuls and the MoI or MoW have a serious disagreement? Whose views prevail? Yes, it says the Consuls, but being at logger heads with an elected official is significantly different from being unable to agree with an appointee. I think that what we have been doing, polling for the peoples' choice, works well. It does reserve the prerogative of one or more of the Consuls to say 'sorry, I just can't work with this guy, we have to have someone else' while at the same time involving the people in the decision. I think it works. I agree with terms for Consuls and having one elected per month. I disagree with term limits. I am not against the Senate continuing as a law making body. I would like to see a mechanism for executive veto or annulment in cases where continuing to follow a law would have clearly negative consequences. Having 4 of the Consuls and the 3 senior ministers agree to veto/annul would be good. In short, I think we can have strong democratic traditions, while maintaining the power of the executive to get the job done. I think that we can have our cake (fun) and eat it too (win) in these matters. I am here to win, but fun is required as well.

hi ,

the last line is great

why cant we just hold elections every 6 weeks or so for all , ...

this way the people who feel they could do a better job get the chance to participate , .....

some consuls and especially some "advisors" should step down from the "i know it all" & "i am the best therfore its out of the question i leave" attitude , .... ( no not you nye ) , .....

ones agian , just take a look at for example cfc , ..... just take a look guys and read on the way they do things , they have some differences but they way the do things , well they are sometimes more advanced then us , .....

have a nice day

	27-05-2003 05:00									#11
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I agree with terms for Consuls and having one elected per month. I disagree with term limits. I am not against the Senate continuing as a law making body. I would like to see a mechanism for executive veto or annulment in cases where continuing to follow a law would have clearly negative consequences. Having 4 of the Consuls and the 3 senior ministers agree to veto/annul would be good.

One month sounds fine.

4 Consuls? Typo or you want to add another one?

I agree that perhaps the Ministers should be more "stable" and only removed through a CoC. I think however the rotating Consulships is an idea that should really be considered.

	27-05-2003 05:05									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

No, I mean 4 of the group of 6 (3 Consuls, 3 senior ministers). If 4 of them agree that an action dictated by a law would be very damaging, then they should be able to put the law aside, act in our best interests, and send the save along in a timely fashion... and then be very prepared to explain why they did so.

	27-05-2003 05:09									#13
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither No, I mean 4 of the group of 6 (3 Consuls, 3 senior ministers). If 4 of them agree that an action dictated by a law would be very damaging, then they should be able to put the law aside, act in our best interests, and send the save along in a timely fashion... and then be very prepared to explain why they did so.

hi ,

, more less like the court of the first game , ....

sounds good

have a nice day

	27-05-2003 05:35									#14
	Got spare money?

Very well formulated/explained, Togas.

Good thing you posted this poll.

	27-05-2003 09:47									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

* MrWhereItsAt breathes a sigh of relief

This would be an excellent result to work from, Togas. We have been trying to suggest what to change, seeing what people thought of that and taking further suggestions. This has for some reason not been working well. If we can get it approved by the team that this is what should be done, then we may hopefully ahve a lot more success in altering what we have as proposed. Thank you.

And for the record, I favour a rotating system of Consuls if it satisfies the team. Instead of splitting the authority up more (this will not work well from the way I see it), it will act to give everyone the chance at this authority over smaller timespans.

	27-05-2003 10:24									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

How about this:

Every 30 days, we draw up a list of people who want to become or remain Consul. Everyone then ranks their top three candidates (even the current Consuls). Top candidate is worth 3 points, second-best is worth 2 points, third-best is worth 1 point. For instance, in an upcoming election, I would vote:

MrWhereItsAt - 3 points (trying to make friends here!)
vondrack - 2 points
panag - 1 point

The next Consuls are those with the highest tallied rankings. This system has the following benefits:

1. Votes of "no confidence" and CoCs are hidden in the point tallies. A current Consul will get voted out based on majority opinion every time, without being publicly "humiliated". Similarly, new candidates will get voted in without having to win a popularity contest.

2. Current Consuls will likely stick around if they're doing a good job, since with the ranking system it is more difficult to boot someone outright (on average, recognized candidates will float toward the top, since they will get some points from everyone).

3. No need to embarrass someone by nominating them. If you want to be included in the vote, you just say so. You're not "running", you're "included in the tally" (I know the distinction is illusory, but I think it makes people feel better).

4. Potential for long or short terms, depending on the needs of the team. If Theseus wants to step in as Consul because we've declared war on CDG, he can do so and gracefully step out in 30 days.


What do you all think?


Dominae

	27-05-2003 10:25									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dominae How about this: Every 30 days, we draw up a list of people who want to become or remain Consul. Everyone then ranks their top three candidates (even the current Consuls). Top candidate is worth 3 points, second-best is worth 2 points, third-best is worth 1 point. For instance, in an upcoming election, I would vote: MrWhereItsAt - 3 points (trying to make friends here!) vondrack - 2 points panag - 1 point The next Consuls are those with the highest tallied rankings. This system has the following benefits: 1. Votes of "no confidence" and CoCs are hidden in the point tallies. A current Consul will get voted our based on majority opinion every time, without being publicly "humiliated". 2. Current Consuls will likely stick around if they're doing a good job, since with the ranking system it is more difficult to boot someone outright (on average, recognized candidates will float toward the top, since they will get some points from everyone). 3. No need to embarrass someone by nominating them. If you want to be included in the vote, you just say so. You're not "running", you're "included in the tally" (I know the distinction is illusory, but I think it makes people feel better). 4. Potential for long or short terms, depending on the needs of the team. If Theseus wants to step in as Consul because we've declared war on CDG, he can do so and gracefully step out in 30 days. What do you all think? Dominae

I like this type of idea.

	27-05-2003 10:32									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Quite perfect Dominae

that is precisely the system I had envisioned. I truly hope we can start working on integrating this ASAP starting with a poll

	27-05-2003 12:45									#19
	Put an end to popups!

Togas - are you saying that this game is not run democratically? If so, I disagree.

The dictionary says about this:
de·moc·ra·cy - Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

I think our current system is therefore a Democracy.

The thing is - there are several ways to organize a Democracy.

This Democracy is organized "through elected representatives", and I think most people, when thinking about a Democracy, are thinking of some sort of "direct control" by the people.

Anyway - this is a theoretical question. The practical question, I believe, has already been posed by Aidun: do we want the best government, or do we want maximum participation and divided responsibilities?

The answer to this is difficult, but Dominae has an interesting proposal: to hold elections in which consuls are elected regularly, but leaves the possibility open that a well-functioning consul can stay in office. I like this idea, though I wonder if many people are willing and able to serve as a Consul.

To conclude: please do not call our current system "undemocratic" !

	27-05-2003 13:06									#20
	Suffering from ads?

BFM: there's a poll going on about rotating consuls, check it out

	27-05-2003 19:56									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Do we want to play a nice game in which all participate and in which we do things in the democratic way although it is less efficient and sometimes gives bad results? OR Do we want to win and therefore give up those pleasures. Then we agree with a low participation, an undemocratic, but efficient form of government which ensures that no mistakes are made?

I truly do not understand why anyone (in fact the majority according the this poll's results) would prefer the second alternative. The entire point of a democracy game is seeing if we can win despite the imperfections and inefficiencies of a democratic government. At least that's how I've always understood it.

	27-05-2003 20:05									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 I truly do not understand why anyone (in fact the majority according the this poll's results) would prefer the second alternative. The entire point of a democracy game is seeing if we can win despite the imperfections and inefficiencies of a democratic government.

I believe that was the point in the SPDGs (Civ2, Civ3 and SMAC).

In this game, we're playing against other Civ3 sites, for the win. If you cannot accept that, this Democracy Game simply is not for you. Most of the discussions here will be about strategy, not the passing of bills, campaigning and roleplaying present in the SPDGs. In fact, it became clear to me a long time ago that this game should not be a "Democracy Game", but a "Team Game". We choose to be more or less "democratic" because we want everyone to participate. But in terms of how the team actually operates to be as competitive as possible, the "democracy" of our government is actually a weakness, not a strength.


Dominae

	27-05-2003 20:05									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Let's see...why would I prefer an efficient government that gets things done to a reckless bumbling government that does things simply by the will of the mob? It is entirely possible for the people to influence and change how things are done in this game- and it has been all along!

For the record, I don't think there have been that many (any?) decisions that have been made by the consuls that have been against the will of the people. I *CAN* think of several cases where the will of the people overruled the wishes of the consul. People are as involved as they want to be. I'm sorry, I have a serious problem with listening to someone complain about how a game is run, when they don't even bother to express their opinions as they go along.

This entire thing is a bit ridiculous. This is like a parent who left when the child was five showing up when the child is seventeen, ranting and raving about how the child should be raised and how they should be given more of a say in it. Where were you for the last 12 years?

This is a new game. This is a different game. There are different rules here. This is not the other game you were in. The needs are different here, and the situation is different. 'nuff said.

	27-05-2003 20:11									#24
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 I truly do not understand why anyone (in fact the majority according the this poll's results) would prefer the second alternative. The entire point of a democracy game is seeing if we can win despite the imperfections and inefficiencies of a democratic government. At least that's how I've always understood it.

Well if that is what the point of this game is then I am truly sorry nobody told me in the beginning, as I would never get involved. I have always understood (because it was stated many times before ISDG started) that this was "The" Game, The "Olympic" Game in Civ3, meant to show which of the Civ3 sites has the best planners, number crunchers, strategists, generals, diplomats etc. A highly competitive game. And the Constitution, however derived from the SPDG NewCon (suffering from relicts acceptable in SPDG, but not MP"D"G), reflected that.

	27-05-2003 20:15									#25
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Well if that is what the point of this game is then I am truly sorry nobody told me in the beginning, as I would never get involved. I have always understood (because it was stated many times before ISDG started) that this was "The" Game, The "Olympic" Game in Civ3, meant to show which of the Civ3 sites has the best planners, number crunchers, strategists, generals, diplomats etc. A highly competitive game. And the Constitution, however derived from the SPDG NewCon (suffering from relicts acceptable in SPDG, but not MP"D"G), reflected that.

This, too, was why I got involved- because waaaaay back when I noticed the posters here on 'poly were a cut above, and I knew I wanted to throw my weight in to prove that 'poly is the best Civ site around.

I'm not here for campaign rubbish, roleplaying (I do that on weekends already), or song and dance. I am here to grind seven teams into miserable, crying goo, and make them see Apolyton in their dreams and wake up screaming in terror.

I want the unit that captures Sid's capital to be named after me.



* Fried-Psitalon Demon-Fried wanders off.

	27-05-2003 20:30									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Well if that is what the point of this game is then I am truly sorry nobody told me in the beginning, as I would never get involved. I have always understood (because it was stated many times before ISDG started) that this was "The" Game, The "Olympic" Game in Civ3, meant to show which of the Civ3 sites has the best planners, number crunchers, strategists, generals, diplomats etc. A highly competitive game. And the Constitution, however derived from the SPDG NewCon (suffering from relicts acceptable in SPDG, but not MP"D"G), reflected that.

I guess this is where I seem to differ from the majority. I see this game as a competition between the teams, yes to see who has the best strategists, but also to see, at least as importantly, who can work best with a strong democratic system. IMHO, the point is not to see who has the best individuals, but to see who has the best "reckless bumbling government that does things simply by the will of the mob" as F-P so eloquently terms it. Perhaps the otehr teams are not being very democratic either (though from what I have heard it seems CFC is being pretty democratic). And suppose we are democratic and we lose. What does that prove? That their very best players are better than our "will of the mob." But it also shows that they do not value the basic idea of a democracy game as much. At least for me, that is what matters most. I respect your opinions, but disagree. And maybe this game is just ont for me, as Dominae said. But I still doubt I could bring myself to leave it, because I can still always enjoy watching/lurking, and there are probably (hopefully) at least a few people that agree with me.

Feel free to ridicule or otherwise reply to my opinion now.

	27-05-2003 21:01									#27
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 Feel free to ridicule or otherwise reply to my opinion now.

I apologize if my previous response sounded harsh on impolite. It was not intentional - I meant what I said. I have never become involved in any SPDGs (or, let's put itthis way: in "truly democratic" games) as they are just big metagames around the real game (of Civ3) I love. Metagames about politic parties, laws, court cases, roleplaying and all that stuff. Not my idea of time well spent. I like to play Civ3, that's what I am after.

I joined PtWDG and later ISDG to test my civ skills, to learn something new from other members of my team, and hopefully contribute with something I know I am good at (reports and keeping things tidy). All that while trying to win the darn game. For me, the fun is in trying to do things the "right" way, however difficult it is to say what this "right" or "best" way may be. And if not the best way, then "better than the other teams".

But that's just me. Haven't intended to ridicule your opinion. Sorry if I did.

	27-05-2003 21:07									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Haven't intended to ridicule your opinion. Sorry if I did.

no problem. I realize my first post was a little harsh anyway. The end of my previous post was half-joking anyway, I think I'll edit it with a smilie to clarify that .

	27-05-2003 21:14									#29
	Suffering from ads?

Same here, Civ. It's not you I'm coming after- I've just always had my problems with the Democratic system (one reason I was originally reluctant to join this game) and someone else (not you) got my ire up with some of their remarks. It may very well be the perception of the basic nature of this game is the problem. I for one am pretty happy with the current Oligarchy, but I can see how if you were expecting a true Democracy, this might be a bit frustrating. If the objective is to WIN, though, I'm not sure Democracy is the way to go.


I mean.....what do you want to bet CDG is a pure democracy? Have you SEEN how bad some of their decisions have been lately? That's really the only explanation I'd have for it- some influential writer with the Civ gifts of a team of oxen has been swaying some votes, or something similar.

	28-05-2003 04:22									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

DP. One of my few.
Oh well...


This post for sale.

Last edited by MrWhereItsAt on 28-05-2003 at 08:46