Next DG Discussion

[Archaic]

Assassination is realistic, but it isn't a common everyday occurance in major nations. Political backstabbing is.

The most fun part of the original game wasn't making the orders, it was debating over what those orders should be, and trying to get people who agreed with you voted in. Those were what kept people in the game. So why exactly are you suggesting that this doesn't happen? Hell, it's not like we'll be electing people for life terms.

[arginine]

Right now, it seems a single faction DG, due to manpower requirements.

As for the faction:

Voltaire has pushed that we should make a generic faction, which will eventually be defined by its members.

Tassadar has pushed that we should choose a faction, which will allow for role-playing.

I favor a generic faction, because our faction will become 'defined' as the game progresses.

I would favor editing the alpha.txt file and beefing up the AI, be it through humans helping out, some tweaks, bonuses. I don't want to face a moronic AI. A merely stupid one would be sufficient.

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 agree with that governmental structure.

I would like the 'territories' to be a group of people that control a group of bases and its non-military units. Furthermore, as the nation expands, territories may be split up, along with its members. We might eventually end up with everyone having a few bases.

Also furthermore, I would like there be a way that the central government to 'tax' the 'territories', in order to get military units manufactured and the like. I could see this field being a major one for debate

We might even permit bartering between the different territories.

Now, lets start deciding things

[binTravkin]

A bypassers opinion:

If I have to choose between poll or debate I choose poll and might add some words as arguments why.

The simple reasons are:

1.Debate does not give you executive power, at least it tends to not give.
The opinions of newest/more inexpierenced members are often ignored (face the truth!) by two simple reasons:

a - because someone knows how to do better
b - because someone pretends to know how to do better.

The latter option is what people find VERY annoying.
And it happens from time to time.
In my Gaian team expierence I had silenced two persons, namely livid imp and Net Warrior (apologies for them) for time of 2 weeks at least.
At that moment it seemed to me that my analysis and strategical idea was better.
But what if person disagrees?
What if at the ends with me being wrong?
It leaves him/her in great frustration/anger and it washes away the feeling of democracy.

2.Poll is quick.
Just one click and you're done!
If it requests you to argument, you write a sentence or two instead of arguing for PAGES as we're doing here (see it?).

These pages have no real use for most participants as:

a - They're pretty hard to read and to keep up to date with em.

b - Mostly they turn out as an effort of people who have lots of time and are posting on a 30 second basis.
Many good ideas slip unnoticed that way as if 2 people argue as you, Drogue and Archaic are doing now, they tend to read the opponents post, not bypassers (read - mine).


We could even make a houserule that polls are not a place to debate - each voter just states why he voted so and there's an additional debate thread for debates on opinions posted in poll thread.
That could keep arguments out of flames..
And very easy to access, read, think about and then go to debate thread and argue.


In general polls might reduce the quality of gameplay as someone might know how to do better, but not have the skills to explain why the team should do so.
But isn't it the main principle of democratical politics?
If you have a good idea, you have to explain it good (Remember Hitler? His ideas we're maybe not so good, but he knew howto explain.. ), so people can read your statement, think about and then vote.

I would even insist that each poll starter collects these different opinions and requests a hort description of each of those opinons from people who expressed them, and puts these short descriptions in the starting post of the poll.

[GeoModder]

QFT BinTravkin.

And I'm (mostly) in favour of Arginine's proposal.

For me, I would add that no more bases are founded as long as there are no governors available to 'manage' them. This to limit the size of our faction according to interest.

[arginine]

Originally posted by binTravkin
A bypassers opinion:

If I have to choose between poll or debate I choose poll and might add some words as arguments why.

The simple reasons are:

1.Debate does not give you executive power, at least it tends to not give.
The opinions of newest/more inexpierenced members are often ignored (face the truth!) by two simple reasons:

a - because someone knows how to do better
b - because someone pretends to know how to do better.

The latter option is what people find VERY annoying.
And it happens from time to time.
In my Gaian team expierence I had silenced two persons, namely livid imp and Net Warrior (apologies for them) for time of 2 weeks at least.
At that moment it seemed to me that my analysis and strategical idea was better.
But what if person disagrees?
What if at the ends with me being wrong?
It leaves him/her in great frustration/anger and it washes away the feeling of democracy.

2.Poll is quick.
Just one click and you're done!
If it requests you to argument, you write a sentence or two instead of arguing for PAGES as we're doing here (see it?).

These pages have no real use for most participants as:

a - They're pretty hard to read and to keep up to date with em.

b - Mostly they turn out as an effort of people who have lots of time and are posting on a 30 second basis.
Many good ideas slip unnoticed that way as if 2 people argue as you, Drogue and Archaic are doing now, they tend to read the opponents post, not bypassers (read - mine).

.....
blah blah blah blah blah
.....

I would even insist that each poll starter collects these different opinions and requests a hort description of each of those opinons from people who expressed them, and puts these short descriptions in the starting post of the poll.

I agree with binTravkin's points

Regarding power to make decisions placed in the hands of an active few versus the 'Parliament', I may have a compromise.

Periodically, we will have 'census' of active members. Having all of the participants in the elections be considered "the active members of Parliament" would ensure election turnout as well.

If a vote on an issue does not garner the votes of >=50% of the active members within a specified period of days (Maybe 4 or 5, less if advance warning of the impending vote is given), the Parliament will be considered 'uninterested' and the decision, and it will fall to the officer / executive responsible for that type of decision.

We could even make a houserule that polls are not a place to debate - each voter just states why he voted so and there's an additional debate thread for debates on opinions posted in poll thread.

Seperate debate and polling threads are good.

I see that the activity has died down here, I guess that means people don't care, or that there is less disagreement.

[arginine]

I wish to put foward the possibility of our faction bonuses changing depending on the style of gameplay, the type of government we run and/or the ruling party. I think the mods might some fun with that. They might even alter AI relations depending on the type of faction we are at the time.

I don't know how to implement this...

Ex1: we pump out boreholes, build no eco damage control structures and many bases pour out toxic dump, our factional bonus then becomes -1 planet, +1 industry.

Ex2: The aggressive parties come to power, declare war on a few weak neighbors, infrastructure building stops as our bases churn our weapons. Factional bonus becomes +1 morale, +1 police, -1 support, -1 eff.

[binTravkin]

WTF "QFT" means?

But seriously! Im not good with abbreviations.

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by arginine
I wish to put foward the possibility of our faction bonuses changing depending on the style of gameplay, the type of government we run and/or the ruling party. I think the mods might some fun with that. They might even alter AI relations depending on the type of faction we are at the time.

I don't know how to implement this...

Ex1: we pump out boreholes, build no eco damage control structures and many bases pour out toxic dump, our factional bonus then becomes -1 planet, +1 industry.

Ex2: The aggressive parties come to power, declare war on a few weak neighbors, infrastructure building stops as our bases churn our weapons. Factional bonus becomes +1 morale, +1 police, -1 support, -1 eff.

This is called Social Engineering (more or less).

[binTravkin]

This is called Social Engineering (more or less).

Yep. I understand arginines' point as he sees too much of standard Demo/FM/Wealth SE.

For example Morganites could take Police/Green/Wealth which, given you have either PTS or MCC or both, can be an incredibly powerful SE combo..

Noone just seem to care as people like to have some good things to believe in and stick to them too closely..

[Maniac]

Originally posted by binTravkin
WTF "QFT" means?

"Quoted for Truth". The newest rage these days if you want to appear hip.

[Googlie]

Not to be confused with TAF - That's a Fact - I saw that on another message board and had to ask what it was. Apparently usually replied to after some very obvious observation was made - slightly derogatory, I gather

[arginine]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory


This is called Social Engineering (more or less).

No, I was refering to the faction 'bonus'. If we have an originally generic faction that will develop a 'culture', it might be interesting for our faction to get bonuses, which reflect our faction's 'culture'.

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by arginine
No, I was refering to the faction 'bonus'. If we have an originally generic faction that will develop a 'culture', it might be interesting for our faction to get bonuses, which reflect our faction's 'culture'.

I know, this is what social engineering does. Faction mods/penalties constrain factions somewhat, as the Hive running Free Market is only as prosperous as most other factions running Simple economics. If you want variable faction bonuses, we could always have a switching-challenge ACDG...

[arginine]

Alright, it was a suggestion / something to consider, seeing how the we have a to be determined ideology faction. It would be sort of like karma for good and evil actions in some computer games. (ex: galactic civilizations???)

What is a switching-challenge ACDG?

Lets get around to deciding changes we want to make to the alpha.txt. I think choppers and planes should be tripled in cost. I'd also like hovertanks, AA and SAM moved foward some. This was discussed at the beginning of the current ACDG. We could dredge up some of those old suggestions.

[Drogue]

No rush guys, there's life left in this game yet! No need to decide things for a while