1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Senate Floor / Dgame Archive / Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion) / Latest Posts

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Comedy Dave — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:22:27 GMT

Cool - I'll put this to the people later on if no-one beats me to it... ;)

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

mongoose201 — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:02:07 GMT

[quote][b]Bismarck2990 (5/31/2007)[/b][hr]

Would this be better?

[QUOTE]4a. In addition, the President must request the Senate's authorization to continue play. In this request, he will include a brief summary of his plans regarding foreign affairs, city production, and unit orders for those 10 turns.[/QUOTE][/quote]

Works for me

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 31 May 2007 22:52:31 GMT

[QUOTE]4a. In addition, the President must request the Senate's authorization to continue play, after delivering a full comprehensive report. In this request, he will include a summary of his plans regarding foreign affairs, city production, and unit orders for those 10 turns.[/QUOTE]

I see Goose. :)

I didn't mean for it to sound like we were requesting a second report from you. The idea was, that after the normal 10 turn report, you are required to submit a request in the form of a brief summary. The 'comprehensive report' was quoted from the above article it was to follow:

[QUOTE]4. The President must deliver a full and comprehensive report before the People and the Senate after every period of ten turns, or when he reaches a point where a decision of the People, the Senate, or the Supreme Court is required to continue play, whichever may come first.[/QUOTE]

But yes, as CD said in the above post, the main thing is that the senate should have some brief sense of direction beforehand. My apologies about the wording, I'll edit it and remove the mention of the above article and include "brief summary."

Would this be better?

[QUOTE]4a. In addition, the President must request the Senate's authorization to continue play. In this request, he will include a brief summary of his plans regarding foreign affairs, city production, and unit orders for those 10 turns.[/QUOTE]

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Comedy Dave — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:11:09 GMT

[quote]A brief summary doesn't take much more time that just playing the turn. A "full, comprehensive report" would take almost as long as the turn playing itself to put together, which is debilitating since I haven't had the time to even play the latest turn yet (making the attempt tonight).[/quote]

Yep, I agree with mongoose, it should say "Brief Summary". All we need is some kind of idea on what direction the pres will head in the next 10 turns. Heck, if something important crops up, he won't even be playing all 10 turns before needing to consult the senate anyway.

I don't think we really need more than a bullet list or a paragraph or two at this stage, it might get a little longer as our Civ grows though.

If the Senate needs clarification on something, the President can always elaborate in the relevant thread. :)

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

mongoose201 — Thu, 31 May 2007 08:42:27 GMT

[quote][b]Bismarck2990 (5/31/2007)[/b][hr]The thinking behind this proposed draft is not to generate more NEW interested citizens. The idea is to generate enough interest for members of the senate to become more involved with the game play. Also, as far as most senators/citizens not having Warlords... I don't need the expansion to suggest how I feel we should irrigate, mine, and etc.

If there's something that's exclusive to only Warlords that leaves me in a position that I'm just far too inexperienced to answer, then there wouldn't be much reason for me to object to the course the President is taking... would there?

This draft is minimal in the overall change to our current game play... the only difference is that the President will be required to request the Senate's approval to continue play... and the request would be in the form of brief explanation of what he plans to do the next 10 turns.

I've asked already and I would seriously like to know. How does this proposed draft increase the President's work load to such a unwanted, high degree?
[/quote]

The problem is consistency with what you are asking for. In your proposed change in the 1st post of this thread, you ask for a "full, comprehensive report" on everything to be done in the next 10 turns. Now you are calling it a "brief summary", which sound fine to me, but if that's what it's going to be, that's what I would want in the constitution.

A brief summary doesn't take much more time that just playing the turn. A "full, comprehensive report" would take almost as long as the turn playing itself to put together, which is debilitating since I haven't had the time to even play the latest turn yet (making the attempt tonight).

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

jerm — Thu, 31 May 2007 01:13:54 GMT

Well he'd have to think more about what he's going to do like which tiles to improve, what he wishes to build, etc. and then ask for permission to do it. My opposition is not because it will add a heavy load to the presidency, it's because I don't believe it will have the desired effect. Hey, but I'm not even a senator...

:ducks out of the hands of the security guards and heads for exits: :D

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Bismarck2990 — Thu, 31 May 2007 01:01:04 GMT

The thinking behind this proposed draft is not to generate more NEW interested citizens. The idea is to generate enough interest for members of the senate to become more involved with the game play. Also, as far as most senators/citizens not having Warlords... I don't need the expansion to suggest how I feel we should irrigate, mine, and etc.

If there's something that's exclusive to only Warlords that leaves me in a position that I'm just far too inexperienced to answer, then there wouldn't be much reason for me to object to the course the President is taking... would there?

This draft is minimal in the overall change to our current game play... the only difference is that the President will be required to request the Senate's approval to continue play... and the request would be in the form of brief explanation of what he plans to do the next 10 turns.

I've asked already and I would seriously like to know. How does this proposed draft increase the President's work load to such a unwanted, high degree?

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

jerm — Wed, 30 May 2007 19:49:40 GMT

I'm not sure I'm in favor of giving the president more work either. I believe that the lack of interest stems from a lot of the citizens being burnt out from the civilized Dgame. von, Tones, HD, Psweet, Biz (though he hadn't been around for a while), myself and some that I'm sure to have missed, seem to be a bit tired of the general democracy system not to mention that most that come to this site actually have lives (unlike other sites :P). I hate to say it but my view is that I have high hopes that this game works out so long as someone else is there to make sure it does. That coupled with the fact that so few have warlords... well perhaps Psweet was right about playing a vanilla game. Even still, I doubt there'd be much more interest. Dgames seem to attract a somewhat certain, specified individual who is in to that kind of thing. It is my opinion that a game like this must give everyone a chance to participate with minimal responsibilities and time involved and yet still be fun. Heck, I'd even say the president could give a report with a line or two per year. Screenshots are nice and appreciated but they are honestly one of the major reasons I have not considered running for president. I really don't have a few hours to burn, that is when I get "my turn" on the good computer. I hate to be a downer but I think that's an honest assesment of the interest situation.

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

tones — Wed, 30 May 2007 17:18:45 GMT

[quote]kind of take a page from tones' book, How to be a Vice President for Dummies. [/quote]

As I recall, HD, I was once your VP so who was the dummy?:P

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Scipio Africanus — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:56:26 GMT

[quote][b]Zigeuner (5/29/2007)[/b][hr] . . . Ten turn discussions just are not going to cut it.

Some questions for the near future:
- how many workers do we need for that jungle?
- how many units do we need for the barbarian pest?
- what early wonder should we try for?

I hope that doesn't sound too much like I'm running for office. :P[/quote]

Sounds TOTALLY reasonable to me. But then, one would have had to have played Civ4 if not Warlords to be able to engage meaningfully in such discussions. We spend a lot of time discounting ideas and questions that come from people having primarily knowledge of Civ3. Just as one e.g., Psweet thought that workers inside cultural borders needed to be protected from wild animals, and I had to do a test to confirm that he was not correct. In short, NONE of us are truly EXPERT with this game yet; not even with Civ4, let alone with Warlords, and if we are going to have a vibrant Democracy Game using Warlords we need a critical mass of citizens and leaders who are interested in, knowledgeable about, and curious of Warlords, and our society as the Celts.

I'm seeing that there are three related but separate elements to a DGame: (a) the mechanics of running the game as if it were manifest from a democracy; (b) the strategy of playing the game; (c) the role playing.

I think we have had too much (a), just the right amount of (c) (which I'd say is what has kept the degree of interest which there IS from dissipating even further), but not nearly enough (b). Not surprising when only a handful of us own, and have ever played Warlords. As soon as one of us counters a claim or a statement by someone else that is based from Vanilla Civ4 or Civ3 knowledge, and point out that it is different in Warlords, people naturally get silent. Not trying to be accusatory, or lay some kinda guilt trip on folks who do not really want to bother buying Warlords given the ambiguities of whether BTS will INCLUDE it, but it is simply a fact that without a critical mass of Warlords PLAYERS as citizens we are never going to get a vibrant discourse going about (b). When (b) lags, the other two elements also naturally tend to lag.

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

HistoryDude — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:30:26 GMT

I like that idea very much, but, yes, the rub is defining to what extent the Senators' powers apply. Man, I wish I had more time right now to brainstorm with you all on a workable solution to this "problem." :crazy:

And we should include a mechanism whereby the deputies can unseat their bosses; kind of take a page from tones' book, [i]How to be a Vice President for Dummies[/i]. :hehe:

No worries, though, Biz... :Whistling:

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

mongoose201 — Tue, 29 May 2007 23:13:41 GMT

What if we elect the Senators as normal (3 or 5) and the President assigns one of them a particular area of government. Also, the area of government wouldn't be tied to a particular seat, but would change with each election cycle, depending on the Senator.

For example, if Zig were to run for and win an election for Senator of the House of Zyn, he might lobby for a cabinet position of Science and Research Minister (or whatever we call it). We could also have a Foreign Affairs Minister, a Labor Minister and so on, and do it all under our current Senatorial model with a few tweaks.

We would need to discuss the authority of these positions. Would their suggestions be absolutes? If so, they could neuter the Presidency. So, while I don't think that the suggestions should be mandatorily followed, there should be some mechanism in place. Part of that mechanism would be that the President assigned a particular area to that Senator, thereby intimating some sort of agreement on the direction of the game...

thoughts?

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Zigeuner — Tue, 29 May 2007 22:49:55 GMT

[quote]But hey, I'm not going to push for something that's viewed as unnecessary. We can sit here and go the same route we've been going since the game started. Which I feel, we can all stay spectators.[/quote]Dude, it's two senators against one, so far. :)

[quote](assuming they can't see or post here?)[/quote]Heh, so I have access because I'm VP?

It may be better to have specialized seats in the senate, either by region (once that's possible) or by what I came up with earlier when the houses were being named. I like research more than anything else and would certainly consider running for research minister/ senatorship. It's just that so far all my grandiose schemes have been deep-sixed, so why bother with more? :P

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Comedy Dave — Tue, 29 May 2007 20:10:55 GMT

Well... i suppose it boils down to one of these options:

- someone proposes some amendents

- we put a thread out in the town square so all citizens can chip in

- we put a vote out to modify the constitution

I say, let's ask the citizens what they think (assuming they can't see or post here?)

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 29 May 2007 18:53:19 GMT

Hmmm... The lack of interest...

I guess we couldn't consider any of what the citizens like HistoryDude, and others have been saying as serious... most have less interest in playing this game because of this government itself (rather then the fact that they don't own Warlords, that really hasn't stopped anybody from running as senator, eh?). If you really want to talk about why there's less interest in this game, then what we had originally started with, then you should first realize how limited the current government is in actual involvement.

The senate is a prime example... how troublesome should it be to keep a senator's interest in doing his job? The senate, which is the largest body in this government, does almost the least amount of work. We write legislation whenever we decide we feel like it, and chime in on whatever is required by the President to address us with. Then, it's pretty much wait until the next term and hopefully someone will take our place. Which, I really don't want to argue about, but I would point towards the last term's campaign speeches.

But hey, I'm not going to push for something that's viewed as unnecessary. We can sit here and go the same route we've been going since the game started. Which I feel, we can all stay spectators.

In all honesty, this thread is catching so much over exaggeration... and with all due respect... As far as writing a summary in the form of a request:

That's brutal, complex, and us trying to emulate a perfect democracy? :unsure:

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Zigeuner — Tue, 29 May 2007 15:56:49 GMT

If the senate wants to be more involved, why doesn't the *senate* write up a set of directions for every 10-turn session? Call it guidelines, call it advice, call it something to talk about... ;)

In Civ4 (for those of you who don't have it and for those of you who don't get it) you have to think farfar into the future. You have to decide up front what a city is going to be. One industrial "capital" is all you need to get a ton of wonders or a unit factory. One science "capital" is all you need to stay competitive. I haven't tried it yet, but you can specialize a city in pumping out great people. Irrigate everywhere and use a ton of specialists.

To me (a civ4 rookie) it feels like we're playing civ3 here. The important issues do not get attention. What do we *want* with Bibracte? It is a grand capital for sure; it can do it all. But we need to specialize. We need to set goals beyond a mere senate's or president's term. We need to discuss what our aims are techwise, so we can pave the dirt path for great projects. We need to decide whether we'll have open borders so we can send forth our missionaries (and build some very lucrative wonders that will give gold or beakers per (state) religious structure). Ten turn discussions just are not going to cut it.

Some questions for the near future:
- how many workers do we need for that jungle?
- how many units do we need for the barbarian pest?
- what early wonder should we try for?

I hope that doesn't sound too much like I'm running for office. :P

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 29 May 2007 10:38:40 GMT

[quote][b]Comedy Dave (5/29/2007)[/b][hr]I don't think Biz was expecting the president to write an essay for each report. Surely at present it would take 5-10mins tops to write some thoughts on how to play the next 10 turns. I don't envisage it would be a pedantic report, just some general ideas on what the president intends to do next. At least then the framework would be in place for when there is more going on in the game.

The thing is, as Biz mentioned, we don't have much interest because effectively only the President actually seems to _do_ things at the moment. If the senate actually has a bit more clout, then those of us without Warlords can actually still shape how the game pans out.[/quote]

I don't see the govt. structure or lack thereof in the game as being the primary cause for the minimal interest. There has never been an amazing degree of interest. Heck, there are only a few of us actually own Warlords. That right there shows that there is not really that much interest in the game Warlords itself, let alone in this DGame.

If even half the citizens owned Warlords, and were speaking from experience instead of supposition, and/or were clamoring for a bigger role in the govt, then the sorts of changes you guys have thought of would seem appropriate. But given that so few citizens have actually run for govt positions, and so few citizens have actually played the game, I just don't think that changes to the govt (particularly adding responsibility to govt roles) is going to generate more interest in the game. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion.

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Comedy Dave — Tue, 29 May 2007 07:09:11 GMT

I don't think Biz was expecting the president to write an essay for each report. Surely at present it would take 5-10mins tops to write some thoughts on how to play the next 10 turns. I don't envisage it would be a pedantic report, just some general ideas on what the president intends to do next. At least then the framework would be in place for when there is more going on in the game.

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Scipio Africanus — Tue, 29 May 2007 06:02:16 GMT

I'm going to have to agree with Mongoose on this one. I do not think that saddling the President (or anyone else for that matter) with more obligations and responsibilities is a way to 'promote' this Dgame. Given the obviously mediocre interest it has garnered already, trying to milk it for 'more' is more likely to kill it. Lets just keep going pretty much as is, else with nomimal changes that will not put additional burdens on anyone, but maybe change viewpoints a tad bit. When the game gets more complicated and we have a dozen or more military units, more cities, more diplomatic exploration, etc., options, etc., then the chance that more interest can be promoted by making DGame roles more detailed etc. will exist. As it is, we are still a pre-iron, pre-writing, pre-monarchy TRIBE! but we are trying to run this DGame like we are some sort of sophisticated post-Renaissance representative democracy!

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Comedy Dave — Tue, 29 May 2007 02:05:33 GMT

And the beauty of that is, if the President gives a very basic summary for future plans, it gives more latitude for the Senate to come up with the remainder... :)

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Bismarck2990 — Tue, 29 May 2007 01:02:32 GMT

I don't see why this would increase the difficulty of the President's job...

There's nothing asked in the above draft but a request in the form of a summary, which is basically a brief explanation in it's very definition. We're not going to be asking you, or any future president, to write what you're going to be doing every turn step by step. At the least, what is being asked, is that the President highlight the key things he plans to do, and allow us (the senate) some room to participate in the game play, with more then just suggestions from the sidelines.

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Comedy Dave — Tue, 29 May 2007 00:37:39 GMT

Hmm... i suppose this goes back to whether we want a faster game, with less interaction, or a slower game, with more interaction.

Biz - nice and succinct. :) But how big/detailed would the president's summary have to be? A paragraph? A few paragraphs?

Mongoose, in regards to your points, the way I see the President's reports are that they are beefed up versions of the kind of reports you would see in a Dynasty game. I.e. more screenshots, more descriptions etc.

Part of writing a dynasty game report often involves some thoughts/suggestions on what should happen in the next session. This is usually just a few sentences. Obviously in the DGame this would require a bit more detail, and then a discussion with the Senate as to how to proceed.

This sounds like it wouldn't take much extra time early in the game, but as the game progresses then obviously it will take more time/effort.

It's a shame that there is no-one out there with Warlords who is willing to run for President too. I'm still a few months away from upgrading my computer, so I probably wouldn't be able to get involved until at least then, but at least I can be involved at the senate level.

One thought here - if the senate takes some time to discuss plans for the next 10 turns, this means the president wouldn't be playing turns as often. So average amount of time spent in a given week on playing might be less? Does that make sense?

RE: Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

mongoose201 — Mon, 28 May 2007 23:27:35 GMT

You do realize that this pretty much ensures that nobody else will run for President. I've run unopposed (Effectively unopposed as Tosk didn't have the ability to play the game) in the previous two elections and I suspect I'll have to run again because, of those who have Warlords, nobody else seems to want to invest the time that merely playing the turns and putting together a report requires. 2-3+ hours with some of the turns/reports. It takes this long because I'm trying to provide enough information so that everyone will understand our position, even those who don't have CivIV or Warlords.

So, not only is the President the most time consuming office before this proposed change, but the time the Presidency requires will nearly double if this goes into effect.

Granted, this is the Senate's call, not the President's, but I thought I would give my 2 cents.

Senate Authorization Draft (Discussion)

Bismarck2990 — Mon, 28 May 2007 22:13:55 GMT

This sounds simple enough... opinions? :)

[QUOTE]4. The President must deliver a full and comprehensive report before the People and the Senate after every period of ten turns, or when he reaches a point where a decision of the People, the Senate, or the Supreme Court is required to continue play, whichever may come first.

[b]4a. In addition, the President must request the Senate's authorization to continue play, after delivering a full comprehensive report. In this request, he will include a summary of his plans regarding foreign affairs, city production, and unit orders for those 10 turns.[/b]

5. The President must present a request to the Senate, and have it approved by simple majority of the Senate, if he wishes to:

- Found a new settlement.

- Disband an existing settlement.

- Adjust Civics.

- Engage in treaties with a foreign power.

- Engage in acts of war with a foreign power.

- Construct a Wonder.

- Use up a Great Person.

[b]- Continue play every 10 turns[/b][/QUOTE]