1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Town Square / Dgame Archive / Ok screw the constitution. / Latest Posts

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

psweetman1590 — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 13:16:04 GMT

I picked the wrong two days to not show up, it seems. You lot have been busy here.

My own fiftieth of a dollar: I think there should be a way for citizens to have DIRECT influence on the game. Biz's ammendment IS the first step in the right direction if you ask me, but the Senate's influence will still be indirect and vague (even if it is more of a factor).

I think the easiest way to achieve this is make the Senate responsible for creating orders and overseing the direction of certain parts of the empire. Perhaps this can be done in the traditional way (department of commerce/science, department of interior, etc.) or, I've been thinking, geographically (senators control individual cities' production and management and also a certain number of the units produced, for example). Naturally, the first is much easier, and tends to get people who have less time. The second is much more time intensive, and given that the majority of our citizens can't even access the save, it's not even an option in our current state.

But either way, I feel that Biz is right. I'm a senator, a princeps even, and I don't feel like I have much influence at all in how the game is run. If it weren't for the fact that I have hope that this can change, I don't think I would even bother being a senator.

And yes, using Warlords was a mistake. As I've said from the beginning. :D Still, I'd rather be happy than right, and if we can make this work WITH Warlords, I'll be very happy.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

jerm — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:09:51 GMT

INTEREST, INTEREST, INTEREST... The biggest problem with these things is that you cannot force interest. People will become involved if there is something to do and something which interests them (ie. it's not a chore and it's fun) and if they have time to devote a few minutes a week/day to do. There is one thing that I think sums up the lack of interest in this game and it's kind of a "been there done that" type of thing. The last 1bc Dgame was so successful (at least that's the impression I got) because it was new and no one had probably done anything quite like it. Well having been involved in two other Dgames already, the novelty's worn off for me. Those who are involved seem to be the ones who weren't involved as much in other Dgames and really want to get it to work. One thing that makes this worse is that the constitution is writen so that it can be reformed as we go along but in doing so, it didn't define enough for the others to do so basically, it needs a leader who will go through and figure out what drastic (and I mean drastic) changes are needed to streamline the system while encouraging participation. All this talk of the last Dgame and trying to replicate it are, I think, why we are struggling so much. It should be nothing like the last Dgame. Get some system which allows everyone to be involved and have some stake in the game. Right now if a monster Civ came along and destroyed our two cities, I'd actually be relieved.

This segues into another possible reason for lack of interest, a lack of conflict. There are no civs on our island so it's easy right now. What damage can any half competent president really do (this is not a knock on Goose; you're doing great)? It seems to me that it's when there is some difficulty that people gain interest. Heck, if there was a way to edit this game and plant a civ on our continent, I'd be all for that. Shoot, even make them larger than us and more technically advanced. Point is, there is nothing other than barbs to deal with at the moment.

All this could just be my perception and I could be totally off base but combined with the "not enough people having Warlords" thing, has created a lack of interest. My suggestion, scrap the constitution and think outside the box a bit to create something people will want to be involved in, not just that they feel obligated to be involved in.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Comedy Dave — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:28:27 GMT

Well, hopefully I've got the ball rolling with the Senate Vote for dismissing MM and VC.

Next we would have to hold elections to replace the 2 Justices.

Do we want to sort out the reform to the Supreme court now, before elections are held? I like the idea of 1 Justice and 1 Deputy Justice/Clerk. Else we have 2 Justices, both of who need to act as clerk?

I like the idea of having one "god" member to help out when things get stuck. In this case we need to get our constitutional reforms through without an SC Justice to update the constitution.

I would suggest, that, for these reforms only:

If no-one else can do it, then Mongoose could update the constitution with the outstanding amendments that MM didn't put through. Alternatively we wait for a new justice to do this.

If we need to amend the constitution for changes to the Supreme Court, then again Mongoose could put them through.

(If that's ok with you Mongoose?)

Once we have the new Supreme Court up and running, then we should fall back to only allowing the Supreme Court to deal with this, else it defeats the point of having them.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Tosk — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:54:14 GMT

One last thought ... as it appears that the "government" is sorta moving toward what needed to be done in the beginning.

Every game I have ever been involved in (of this sort) has had a fall back ... some games called it a clerk, some called it the god position, some called it something else. But they always had a position, or person, who kept things moving when things began to stagnate.
Mongoose is attempting to do this, in this game, without overstepping the presidential authority, a tricky line to walk.

IIRC we had to impeach our first two elected presidents in the old DGame before it got moving well ... And eventually we added a clerk there also.

I think a lot of the problem stems not from warlords or vanilla ... but simply the fact that as a game cIV is just not as good/popular overall as civIII was.

Both games have strengths and weaknesses but in popularity civIII was far superior, even at 1BC the expected "traffic" increase did not happen ... to be sure some new people did show up but cIV did not bring in the flood that III did ... and some (far more than with civIII) have just faded away.

I hope BTS will rectify this ... make those who like cIV now become fanatical and bring those of us that are to bored to continue back to a level of enjoyment we expected in the first place.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Mr. G — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:16:43 GMT

Thank you again for your recommendation, Bis :D

However, I, personally, will not/can not induct myself into the Supreme Court. That is the present government's responsibility...

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Comedy Dave — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:19:22 GMT

Hey Biz,

Your constitutional amendment regarding Senate giving authority for the president to continue every 10 turns was voted on here:

[url]http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2238112-86-1.aspx[/url]

And passed. :)

We just need a justice to actually write the amendment into the constitution.

Psweet also raised a motion to shrink the Senate, which has been passed:

[url]http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2238184-86-1.aspx[/url]

So basically we need to:

1.) Get MM or replacement Justice to add these amendments into the Constitution.

2.) Determine text and propose reduction of size of supreme court, and position of clerk.

Technically, the SC Justice should be putting these constitutional amendments to the people, but as MM said, the current votes should be given assent into the constitution to keep the game moving.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Bismarck2990 — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:31:54 GMT

Option A. Pass my draft into law and there will actually be something the Senate does in regards to game play. Also, we need to get Mr G into the Supreme Court before we can talk about limiting its size. After this is done, I would be more then willing to rewrite my thoughts on the introduction of a "Clerk" to include Tosk's idea into the scheme of our current setup.

In regards to disbanding the Senate and making it part of the citizen body:

Personally, going with allowing every citizen the right of the senator, is down right boring and would kill my own interest. It would not have the end result of keeping more people interested, and in my mind, could lead to more stalls in events where people disagree (heck, look at how we are now in this discussion). There's that familiar "too many cooks in one kitchen" truth in the back of my mind.

The primary need is a simplified way for the senate to actually become involved in the game... my draft allows that (or at the very least, the beginning step towards that direction). I'll also bring up another corny line: "A flat ocean doesn't attract surfers," so I'm still stead fast in demanding the Senate be allowed to generate waves via my proposed draft.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Comedy Dave — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 00:03:10 GMT

Well, regardless of what we decide here, we should aim to work this out sooner, or else it'll start turning people off getting involved.

Based on what people have said, here's what I think could happen:

Keep the Presidency + Vice Presidency

Reduce Supreme Court to 1 SC Justice, but create a Deputy role.

Give VP and Deputy Justice "Clerk" duties, to give other officials a kick up the bum when they're needed. Assume that we must have people who definitely have the time to fill all of these roles!

Senate: create a poll:

Do we wish to:
(A) Keep the Senate as present (3 members + (optional) deputies)
(B) Change setup so Senators are responsible for creating and holding polls, but instead of Senate Quorum, all votes are for all citizens (we need a citizens quorum for motions to pass)
(C) Remove the senate entirely and allow all citizens to act as the senate once did.

The reason I suggest option (B), is that then all votes have citizenship involvement, but the Senators act as the Clerks for creating and holding such polls - to create some consistency. Senators could be lobbied to try and promote certain strategy.

I see option (C) potentially falling into chaos as any citizen can start a poll without some consideration to wording and consistency. Two citizens who disagree may end up creating conflicting polls, for example.

I don't see a problem with option (A) myself, if citizens actually lobbied their Senators to consider specific issues. It is very easy for people to vote in a poll (yes/no), without actually getting involved in discussion, or thinking about their choice.

Other thoughts:

Agree that Warlords has limited the involvement, but warlords is only vital for the person playing the turns, and mongoose's reports have been of very high standard. We surely have other members with Warlords - but the issue is that no-one else can/will devote time to play the turns and give a report. Would opening this up to all members who have Civ4 (not warlords) change this? Possibly, but not definitely.

The curious lack of involvement may well still occur even if we shrink the government structure. It is easy for people to sign up to a list of citizens, and potentially vote yes/no in a poll, but not as much to actually get involved in discussions. I'd like to hear from some of the citizens who have not been involved in these discussions so far, what would make them get more involved?

The Senate thus far has spent time wrangling out organisational issues to do with lack of involvement. We have not been lobbied to do anything in particular, but I feel we have at least tried to make an effort. Biz's law about getting the president to get senate approval is a move in the right direction I feel.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Mr. G — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:12:58 GMT

The above points are valid.

I would like to throw my hat in for involvement; however, it is only for the summer and highly volitile (if I spelled that correctly).

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

tones — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:29:23 GMT

For what it's worth, I'll stick my little contribution in. I have been fairly active at CiviliZed, but not here, because:

*The Constitution is dense, lengthy, and obscure - sorry, but it is.

* The Senate has nothing definite to do - yes, they can define things to do, but they haven't because they lack direction and leadership. It is a basic and fundamental fault.

* Using the Warlords expansion has created a sense of uninvolvement - argue as much as you like but using "Warlords" was a mistake. Personally I would have become far more involved if it were vanilla, but I feel marginalised, unable even to download a save.

* There is a curious lack of involvement. I cannot explain this. Mongoose has been a fine President, and yet the only thing I remember about the expansion of the country is that our first ship was called "Doomed". At least I think it was. The rest I don't care about. Why? Is it just me?

* What with the disgraceful abscence of the Supreme Court and the flailing-about of the Senate (with nothing happening except obscure and uninteresting discussion to the uninvolved) anyone looking in would have rightfully thought "what a bloody mess"; is it any wonder that the thing has hit a mudbank and stalled horribly?

* I don't want to be President. Ok, ha ha, but think - a game such as this should invlove people to the extent that they want to participate. In fact, I couldn't care less. Why is that? Is it my fault? (possibly, yes) But why was Mongoose unopposed last term? A healthy game should have lots of candidates.

* Prove me wrong. PLEASE prove me wrong. But something tells me this ain't gonna make it. In fact..... let's be realistic here...... how long will the "Doomed" float"?

*"Screw the constitution" - maybe not such an ill-judged call after all? Just perhaps the only way of rescuing this Dgame? Heck, I'm probably being too pessimistic, but something drastic needs to happen.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:00:48 GMT

[quote]If we go down that track, it will end up the 1BC Mongoose game . . .[/quote]

Not necessarily. We have something like 25 or 30 citizens. But only a handful are "part of the government," (5 Senators, 5 Deputies, 2 SCs, 1 Pres, is their a Vice Pres?).

The problems we have suffered IMO have to do with guys not being around to deal with their piece of the bureacracy. This despite the fact that, we have more than once had referendums and such that manage to get 10 to 20 votes, a true quorum. Also, we've had plenty of activity among the role-playing crowd.

So, I guess I would actually correct myself a bit. I think the lack of citizens who own Warlords is a factor, but I think too much bureacracy is the main factor. If we had 100 citizens, then yes, having a system to prevent bedlam would be necessary, but with under 40 citizens in the society it is an unnecessary layer of effort and obligation/

Possible solution? Keep the Constitution, but consider all citizens to be "Senators" for all practical purposes. A quorum is all that is needed for the "Senate" (meaning the citizenry) to do anything. The Pres still has to get permission from the populace for whatever he currently has to get permission for, nothing as far as the possible role of the populace to influence events in the game would change, except that the populace would be more structurally engaged with the matters fo state. The 72 hour time frames for voting etc, all sound fine, but just take away the bureacratic layer of having Senatorial elections that nobody runs for, and give power to the PEOPLE!

The SC Judges have done a great job in getting the basic structure of the DGame set up, including the Constitution, and are clearly long-term committed to the game. But like the rest of us, it is a pain to have to log on here EVERY DAY (or even necessarily EVERY week) to make sure you don't have some "chore" to take care of.

Possible solution? Whatever ongoing daily "maintenance" duties the SC Judges are obligated to, allow anyone to do it. At the end of the day, a referendum is the ultimate authority in any democracy, so why not just take away the obligation for anyone to participate more actively, and open the door for everyone to participate more actively?

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Tosk — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:14:06 GMT

OK ... my fault ... "Screw the Constitution" was a truly bad title for this thread.
I can see now that it got people feeling like I was advocating the total over throw of the current game/system ... this was not my intention.
I was simply throwing myself out to see if the community wanted someone to be a fall back guy in the event polls were not posted, finalized, or any other "dirt work", that was one or two days behind, because the "authorized" official had not been around for a couple days.

This is my little unofficial poll, noon next Saturday I'll add up the yea's and nay's and if the yea's win I'll petition the government to officially enact this into law, or whatever, if the nay's win I'll shut up and go back to being an interested observer ... no harm, no foul.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Bismarck2990 — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:33:37 GMT

[QUOTE]The idea for a clerkship has been proffered before, but it kinda fizzled then. I think it would greatly help if we had this safety net and eliminated all these needless delays.[/QUOTE]

Yes. I've brought it up before and I believe it would be great to avoid delays. I also agree that the current setup which requires two judges is unfavorable, if you were to factor in the actual interest for the game thus far. The clerk would be great in that aspect, however, I'm not in favor of completely tossing out the whole system which is in place at the current time.

Wanted to include this so you wouldn't feel like I ignored your post in my above post... was already writing my own response to other comments before this one popped up.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Bismarck2990 — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:26:56 GMT

Scip, I don't see how that was any different from what I said... :blink:

CD, I have the time to contribute, but not the means to do so. The current lack of involvement by our citizenry and members of government, is mainly the result of what myself and Scip have pointed at above (lack of Warlord able members). I've also pointed out in other threads, how this game is basically us just gathered around the forum, watching Mongoose play the game (even claiming it to be a 'Spectator's Game' rather).

My previous proposals were made to promote involvement by including the senate briefly before the sessions are actually played. However, the discussion surrounding that draft died out right after goose (who is the current president) stated a reply, favoring it after the proper edits were made. In my mind, this was perfect to avoid future: "Hey.. maybe we could've been more involved if this game was played with Vanilla," comments... not to mention, give the senator/citizen more reason to actually stick around (which is severely lacking with the current setup).

Look at it like this:

Which scenario matches you?

A.) Would you be more interested in sticking around if you were just watching somebody play a game?

B.) Would you be more interested in sticking around if you participated in a game?

You could argue that most citizens are busy with "real life," and that's the reason they haven't been around. However, my feelings are that there's no reason for them to indulge further with the current setting... In all honesty, this DGame is not something I consider so time consuming, that it detracts from the overall amount of time I would've normally spent browsing the threads here normally (aside from the Presidency).

The Senate, which is probably the most flexible body in regards to time, shouldn't have problems keeping their members active if the only problem is time. The main problem, in my opinion, is that there's no reason to actually contribute as there is rarely anything for us to do.

I will also go to say, that when most issues that require our involvement are brought up, it is usually forced by other members to actually attempt to revive some interest in the job and game. I shouldn't be the only one who sees the problem with that.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Zigeuner — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:05:35 GMT

If you want a head count, then sure, here is mine... [url=http://planetsmilies.net][img]http://planetsmilies.net/violent-smiley-1401.gif[/img][/url]

I will NOT commit to being president or judge, ever.[/period]

I WILL commit to being vice-president or deputy senator, if I'm shadowing for someone reliable.

I MAY commit to being senator, if I think someone else is doing a particularly lousy job, or if I think my insights are needed to make sure we research fast enough (not that senators have much say over that yet :P ).

The idea for a clerkship has been proffered before, but it kinda fizzled then. I think it would greatly help if we had this safety net and eliminated all these needless delays.

Another idea to reduce the enormous strain of office on our fledgling population would be to make do with one judge with one deputy. The deputy could double as clerk. Again, if I'm shadowing for someone reliable, I WILL commit to being deputy judge. The arguments against having one judge instead of two seem strictly academic, with two judges missing...

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Comedy Dave — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:03:34 GMT

[quote][b]Scip[/b][hr]The main problem is that most of the citizens do not own and play Warlords![/quote]

That may be true, but I kinda think now that there is just not enough people who are interested or willing to dedicate the time to keep this going.

Your quote from before Scip says it all...

[quote] . . or we could just dispense with the whole representative democracy idea, and use a simple direct participatory democracy . . .[/quote]

If we go down that track, it will end up the 1BC Mongoose game, No offence to Mongoose. He has done a great job thus far as president, and so far there has not been any real competition. (Tosk did not have Warlords at the time during his bid, and it remains to be seen if people vote for Tora instead of Mongoose this time round). We will end up with 1 member playing the turns, and others just chipping in when they feel like it, with no obligation.

I think that most of us have a life outside of 1BC and that can infringe on dedicating time to the DGame. We need people who can commit for at least a few weeks at a time to serve out their term. Many people's computer time is already taken up with Dynasty games or PBEM games, so it gets harder to find 30mins a day to keep up with the DGame and post threads.

We need to determine the following:

Are there enough members who can commit time to fill the positions in this DGame?

If not, does that mean we need to reduce the number of positions required to keep the game running, or do we need to come up with a new system, where there is still debate and involvement, without it becoming a 1-man show.

Tosk's idea for a Clerk could work, but I would like it run through the system officially, so we get time to discuss and outline exactly how that could work. Again we would need someone dedicated and diligent enough to chase everything up.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Scipio Africanus — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:30:42 GMT

[quote][b]Bismarck2990 (6/9/2007)[/b][hr]Nay. The main problem is that the game is played on Warlords. I won't agree to this just so we can substitute that.[/quote]

:) I'll insist on turning this on its head.

The main problem is that most of the citizens do not own and play Warlords!

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Comedy Dave — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:01:00 GMT

I say nay.

The problem here is really we don't have enough officials who can actively dedicate time to this game - regardless of whether there is a "Clerk" or some such role giving people a kick from time to time.

I'm starting to find it frustrating, as no doubt are the other members who have been involved this far.

Lack of people having Warlords may be one factor, but also the abundance of other "DGame" type games may be playing a part.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Bismarck2990 — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:31:58 GMT

Nay. The main problem is that the game is played on Warlords. I won't agree to this just so we can substitute that.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Zigeuner — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:03:46 GMT

That still counts as only one vote, right? :)

Don't know if this qualifies as an official referendum, posted on the weekend, number of hours it's supposed to stay open not mentioned, nailed to the palace doors like we're out for someone's blood...

Still voting aye. I've lost track whether the president can post the poll for presidential elections, or whether we really need a judge or a clerk to do it, I'm half of a mind to just post the damn thing myself. This senate is better than the previous one; this presidential race is more unpredictable than the previous ones; you don't attract more officials with stagnation, only pestilence...

Gotta tend to my boy now. ;)

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

mongoose201 — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:30:30 GMT

Nay, nay, nay...:)

What we need, is elected officials that live up to their end of the bargain. This constitution doesn't require much time of any position except for maybe the Presidency and at times the Court. The Senate has their moments of activity also, but it's not out of the realm of time already spent onsite.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Mr. G — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:21:46 GMT

Aye ;)

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

jerm — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:38:23 GMT

Or a monarchy :P

Aye

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:26:23 GMT

. . . or we could just dispense with the whole representative democracy idea, and use a simple direct participatory democracy . . .

Aye!

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

Tosk — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:58:45 GMT

[quote]Why not just run for supreme court justice?[/quote]

Because there is a big difference between needing to post debates and opinions, think through proposed changes etc. and just doing clerk work.

RE: Ok screw the constitution.

psweetman1590 — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:38:32 GMT

Why not just run for supreme court justice? They're really the only ones who're missing.

But, what the heck.

Aye.

Ok screw the constitution.

Tosk — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:28:04 GMT

[quote]whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ...[/quote]

It's time for a good old fashion referendum to get things moving. This is no way a reflection on goose, he has kept his end up admirably.

Resolved:
Someone needs to be here [u]EVERY DAY[/u] for a couple minutes just to see if anything needs to be done.

Until elected officials are in place that will exercise their elected duties in a timely manor ...

I'll do it, I drop by at least once a day ... We can call it the temporary emergency "do what ever is needed" clerk ... or every ones deputy deputy ... or deputy dog?

If you agree reply with a aye

"I swear before almighty god this land will be justly governed ... even if I have to do it myself."
~Oliver Cromwell~