Next DG Discussion

[Drogue]

I'd rather have officials elected for different jobs, like social engineering, base production, foreign affairs, intelligence, military, etc. and having governors as we grow. Else we'll only have one official at the start and are limited by the number of bases we have to how many participants we can have.

[GeoModder]

Not really, for governing a base wouldn't be obligatory. But it could limit the amount of ICR against those poor AI's.

And most of the jobs you describe would be possible even with bases governed by players (except base production).

This is the organogram I see:

- Faction Leader (turn player)
- Other gov. members (intelligence, army, diplomaty, the stuff...)
- Parliament, or inner council, or whatever we call it (this consists of all participants.
- Base Governors (for those participants willing to handle bases)

I would say not to start a new base unless some governor can be found for it, and bases from which the governor abandons the job should go to the AI governor unless there is a replacement.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
No, in a council democracy, if there is a large difference, like changing the political system they use, or altering their constitution, it would be voted on by the council, not decided by one person. The leader of the council would not allow one council member to declare a police state, for example.

A compromise then? The leader (not necessarily the turn-player, though s/he may be) has under their responsibilities the matters of SE.

[Maniac]

A fourth (or so) person's view:

There's the parliament (all participants). That has the power to decide over issues that affect the entire faction, such as energy sliders and social engineering.

There's the government with people in charge of specific fields such as the military, probe forces (without needing to poll about what to decide)... The government posts are not directly elected, but are divided by a coalition of parties forming a majority of 50+ % of the parliamentarians. This will create a parliamentary opposition excluded from executive decision powers. Could create some fun I guess.

There are the governors in charge of bases or regions. Instead of the system of ACDG1 where everyone could put forward his candidacy for any region, and where everyone could vote in every governor election, I'd suggest a system where everyone much choose one base or region to live in, and they can only vote in the governor elections of the place where they live. This will prevent that a party or coalition having 51% of the votes will get all governor seats. Instead if you're for example a little green party fighting against boreholes, you could all move and live in the same region and elect at least one governor. Larger parties could spread out their members to get several governor seats. This will once again create a system where there could be a base governor of an opposition party in political conflict with the majority government.

[Drogue]

I have to say, I think these ideas are getting far to complex. As we've learned before in most areas of 'Poly, the simpler things get and keep the most members.

As for Archaic's idea, if the elected officials decide everything, what do the rest of the faction do? If we're going to retain members, we need to have input at every level from all members. That's why we had referendums and debates. If you take the majority of those away, what does the common member do? Nothing, or just advises and debates, they don't have any input on anything. It's not a method condusive to keeping members.

I like the governors idea, though that's for the late game, as with under 5 bases, there's no point having governors. With governor's of bases, we could do, though it would get very complicated and would mean completely uncoordinated build-orders. I think simplicity is needed, and after a lot of changes, I think near the end of ACDG1 we got pretty close to the best way to run it. Yes, it needs changes, but I think systems that complicated, with only voting if you live in that base, leaves you open to rogue votes (or removes the secrecy of the ballot) as well as making it too complicated for new members. It was daunting when I joined, how it worked, I really don't want to make it so daunting we don't get new active members.

[Archaic]

We kept plenty of members in the first game where all they really did was debate anyway. I don't see how reducing how many irrelevant polls they're going to have (Seeing as they're almost always going to want exactly what their elected official wanted anyway) will change they. The input you have is debating with others to try and convince them to join your side and give you the vital votes to get your party member into power, and to allow your elected officials to make informed decisions (Since they could always change their minds and pull something totally different from what they said once they get into office. Politicians *are* like that).

[Drogue]

They weren't irrelevant polls. Every time SE settings were to change, sliders altered, techs researched, diplomacy conducted, bases to be founded and even on strategy for movement of units and build orders, there was a poll. This was the main outlet for people to get involved. Now I admit the latter two aren't needed, we can allow build orders and movement of units to be decided by the officials, and politicians can be elected on certain platforms for them.

However having the officials having the power to do what they want brings us many problems, besides not getting non-elected members involved:
What if an official doesn't give orders?
What if an official decides to do something completely different after being elected?
The believeability - would any council allow a fundamental change in political system (From Demo to Pol State, for example), declaring war on a neighbour, or changing the entire economic system to be decided by one person? No, that would be a matter for a vote.

In the CyCons, we had 3 catagories for how important an action was. Minor actions, such as terraforming, unit movement, etc. we decided by the official in question, or if no orders given, decided by the turnplayer. Blanket actions are ones that can be polled for a general strategy, but not to be polled for each time, such as military strategies, standard tech trades and advanced terraforming, like boreholes. Major actions must be polled each time, and covers signing pacts/treaties/truces/vendettas, research, SE changes and constitutional changes.

This was a consitution for a smaller faction, so just had 4 officials and was based on DE's and DBTS's ACDG1 version.

In short, polls did matter to people, as they could have direct impact, not just debate, on the way the faction was run. To have one person deciding to start a war, change the rules or the political system, just seems way to far to me.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
I have to say, I think these ideas are getting far to complex. As we've learned before in most areas of 'Poly, the simpler things get and keep the most members.

My perception may be skewed as I'm busy with politics about every day, but what's so complex about my proposal? Surely about all Apolytoners live in countries with a parliament, government and local councils, and therefore can guess without much explanation what each official is responsible for. It's also a middle-way between giving every participant a voice, and giving officials some room to do something according to Archaic's request.

Yes, it needs changes, but I think systems that complicated, with only voting if you live in that base, leaves you open to rogue votes (or removes the secrecy of the ballot)

Rogue votes? How do you mean? And regarding removing the secrecy of ballot in governor elections, won't about everyone publically show support for a party anyway?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
My perception may be skewed as I'm busy with politics about every day, but what's so complex about my proposal? Surely about all Apolytoners live in countries with a parliament, government and local councils, and therefore can guess without much explanation what each official is responsible for. It's all a middle-way between giving every participant a voice, and giving officials some room to do something according to Archaic's request.

Well, to be in a particular base/region to vote in a particular poll. Moreover, it means candidates must be part of a party to stand, something many people choose not to have before. It's a lot more complex, voting only in specific elections, having parties elected then deciding roles, voting for a party system rather than a candidate for each position. The system was complicated enough last time, having those things added makes it moreso. We know from forum games and from the last DG that the simpler games get and retain far more members. Your proposal is not horrendously complicated, but is far more complicated than necessary for a DG. Moreover it forces parties on anyone who wishes to stand.

Originally posted by Maniac
Rogue votes? How do you mean? And regarding removing the secrecy of ballot in governor elections, won't about everyone publically show support for a party anyway?

Rogue votes being people who live in other cities/regions voting in the poll for that region. And not necessarily, some people may like to play by pledging support to a party and voting for a different one, or may not want to be tied to who they support. That's why voting's normally anonymous.

[GeoModder]

But Drogue, if the ballots are anonymous, who do we know then to prosecute in case they have a minority opinion?

It gives so much potential for 'roleplay'!

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Drogue
Rogue votes being people who live in other cities/regions voting in the poll for that region. And not necessarily, some people may like to play by pledging support to a party and voting for a different one, or may not want to be tied to who they support. That's why voting's normally anonymous.

Regarding rogue votes, I was thinking that for regions there wouldn't be polls, but that everyone would just say who they voted for. Yeah I know, this would mean no secrecy...

Anyway, I just thought this governor system could prevent a situation of a group with 51% support gaining all governor seats, and could give people a chance to build a region according to their own preferences, eg building no boreholes. So I had you and Aurillion in mind when I thought of this. In ACDG1 everyone who wanted one always got a governor seat simply because there were too few active people to fill all positions. But if we have more active people than positions (one can always dream ) this may no longer be the case and minority opinions might not be represented.

But whatever, if you know a simplier system that would still represent minority opinions, I'm happy with that of course.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
Anyway, I just thought this governor system could prevent a situation of a group with 51% support gaining all governor seats, and could give people a chance to build a region according to their own preferences, eg building no boreholes. So I had you and Aurillion in mind when I thought of this. In ACDG1 everyone who wanted one always got a governor seat simply because there were too few active people to fill all positions. But if we have more active people than positions (one can always dream ) this may no longer be the case and minority opinions might not be represented.

I agree with your aim, though I think having voting not necessarily by parties means you can have regions with different characteristics, as we had last time. And we didn't have a region for everyone, I lost Akiria at one point.

I'd love to use that idea, and for governors I think it's great. But governors are later in the game, as I think per region rather than per base is much better, for coordination and as what is one bases land and what's anothers? Could lead to all sorts of arguments. A region gives a chance for the region to have it's own characteristics, like lack of boreholes or swiss cheese, for example.

At the beginning, however, I think it's going to far to have base governors. Have that done by an official when we only have a few bases.

Originally posted by Maniac
But whatever, if you know a simplier system that would still represent minority opinions, I'm happy with that of course.

I'd say individual candidates. That way minority positions, when there's a strong candidate, get represented in the government. As we found in the last one, small parties still won official positions.

I agree with giving more power to officials, however I think there still needs to be a lot of involvement for others, as we'll only have 8 or 9 positions at the start, and we want to manage to keep far more than 8 or 9 members. Having 20 members and 8 or 9 positions means we need some way of getting those 11/12 others involved, and I think having to hold polls for things is one way, along with debate. The elected official still gets to decide whether and when to poll, and has considerable weight, as well as deciding on most decisions.

[binTravkin]

SO is there any consensus about faction and style (either of the 3) we should choose for next ACDG?

not keen to read it all..

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Drogue
They weren't irrelevant polls. Every time SE settings were to change, sliders altered, techs researched, diplomacy conducted, bases to be founded and even on strategy for movement of units and build orders, there was a poll. This was the main outlet for people to get involved. Now I admit the latter two aren't needed, we can allow build orders and movement of units to be decided by the officials, and politicians can be elected on certain platforms for them.

Politicians might weigh up the opinion of the uninformed masses depending on the situation, but those surveys are only guides, not orders to the politician.

However having the officials having the power to do what they want brings us many problems, besides not getting non-elected members involved:
What if an official doesn't give orders?
What if an official decides to do something completely different after being elected?

I fail to see the problem here. What if a politician in game does something politicians do in real life all the time? Your point?

The believeability - would any council allow a fundamental change in political system (From Demo to Pol State, for example), declaring war on a neighbour, or changing the entire economic system to be decided by one person? No, that would be a matter for a vote.

A modern democracy? Maybe not. But an older form of democracy, which you could expect society to revert to (remember, 1 point of pop supposedly represents a mere 100,000 citizens), yes. That person would be the elected leader.

In short, polls did matter to people, as they could have direct impact, not just debate, on the way the faction was run. To have one person deciding to start a war, change the rules or the political system, just seems way to far to me.

Most people IRL have no direct impact outside of their votes and fundraising on the behalf of their preferred officials anyway. Again, what's your point?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Archaic
I fail to see the problem here. What if a politician in game does something politicians do in real life all the time? Your point?

Because it's not condusive to a pleasant game. Yes, backstabbings and breaking manifesto's is realistic, but then's so assassination, and we're not advocating that. This is about having fun and playing as a team.

One person having the ability to do what they want in their area means the only direct effect people have is voting and debating. That isn't enough to keep people interested in the game, and to keep membership higher than the 8 or 9 people who have positions. We need to keep at least 15-20 people for it to be fun and a proper democracy game. That's why we need direct involvement from non-elected citizens.

Originally posted by Archaic
Most people IRL have no direct impact outside of their votes and fundraising on the behalf of their preferred officials anyway. Again, what's your point?

Because this isn't real life. This is about keeping people interested, which means keeping them involved. This game is about fun. That's my point.

For a DG to be fun, we need as many members as possible, at least 15 or so. Making the 8 or 9 elected people the only ones with any power means we'll soon be left with those 8 or 9 people. Even factions in team DGs poll for some things, as they need the opinion of the faction. It's about playing as a team, not doing your own bit and leaving everyone else to do theirs, and that means the faction decides when it goes to war or changes the way it runs, not one member.