Amendment: Code of Ethics

[Jon Shafer]

After the discussion brought up in the "Ethics" thread (I'd give a link, but I don't feel like finding the URL ), I'm making a poll on it. Since it's creation would be official and impact the decisions taken in the game, it must be an Amendment. A 'Bill of Rights', if you will.

Question:
Should we have a Code of Ethics added to our Constitution?

Options:
Group A - Yes, we are a moral people, we need strict standards
Group A - Yes, but only for certain things
Group B - No, send them all to Hell!

Expiration:
5 Days

[Togas]

If we did have an Ethical Code, what would it be?
Who would write it?
Would we all have to agree to it to continue participating in the game?
What would the consequences be of breaking it?

We ought to consider these questions before casting our votes.

[notyoueither]

I believe that the proper ethics at this point are that Pharaoh is a god. We are the only ones worthy of the Gods. All exist to serve us and us to serve the Gods.

That's all the ethics we need for the moment.

[Sheik]

I think we first need to agree to have one.

I think we should have a ethical code that can be changed anytime by anyone with a simple majority vote.

[ManicStarSeed]

See the Ethics Thread for background on this poll.

There have been some discussion concerning whether we hold ourselves to a higher ethical path than the computer would as we seek victory. Since we have a group (or a community) of people, working towads a collective Civ III win, we are no longer really playing pure Civ III per se, but a grander, more dramatic version of the game.

Do we want to include ethics in the way we play the game?

I know when I play my own games, I do notice ethical "stories" play out. Like when I totaly wiped out the Aztecs in my own twisted version of manifest destiny. After razing every city on conquest, building american cities in their place, enslaving close to 70 or so workers, I was moved by realizing that reality was not so different. I kept the slaves the whole game and it made my civ quite strong. By the time I was thinking about nukes, I built the manhatten project. I never build the manhatten project (ethical thing) but this time I was playing with a more vicious game so It seemed consistant with my civ's set of ethics.

Point is we can decide that consciously instad of just willy nilly do the easiest thing and who cares...

I support playing by an "ethical code" It could be Machiavellian, High Minded Humanist (HMH) or somewhere in between. We can, and think we should, activly decide.

This poll seems to be created just to decide whether we want a code of ethic or not.

Please see the Ethics Thread for the background.

MSS

[edit:typo]

[civman2000]

I accidentally voted for the second group A, i meant to vote for group B. WE don't have to have it in the constitution, but instead create polls about a few specific things. There's no need to make it so official

[GoodFella]

We don't need ethics to hurt our civ. There's no use for them in the game. What we need is to win and and advance ourselves at the most painful expense of the comupter as possible.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by civman2000
I accidentally voted for the second group A, i meant to vote for group B. WE don't have to have it in the constitution, but instead create polls about a few specific things. There's no need to make it so official

although I agree to a point, I think it would be nice to have it down on paper.

But like I stated before, It must be a gradually ammended type of thing.. with certain attrocities acceptable untill certain events, such as changes of government.

The world had it down on paper long enough.. with the works of Confucious in the east, and with the Bible in the west (im generalizing heavily.. just take my point that religion has left the world with ethics since forever)

[jdd2007]

go straight to hell. do not pass go. do not collect $200

[jdd2007]

this is only a game...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by civman2000
I accidentally voted for the second group A, i meant to vote for group B. WE don't have to have it in the constitution, but instead create polls about a few specific things. There's no need to make it so official

If we're going to have some things 'you can't do this!' as some are suggesting, then it has to be an amendment. Picking and choosing on certain issues with polls is also a possibility, but it isn't exactly a "code of ethics" in that manner.

[Kuciwalker]

Here's my ethical code:

Thou shalt enslave workers.
Thou shalt raze improperly placed cities.
Thou shalt declare war on other civs.
Thou shalt betray the AI when it suits thine advantage.

[mtgillespie]

The poll is wrong. A poll of this nature has to start with the question of whether we include ethics in the game at all, or at least include a 4th option, "No, we should deal with each ethical case in the discussion threads"

i like the idea of using ethics in the game, to make it more realistic, but an actual code of ethics is too limiting. it would become like a straightjacket, and stifle some elements of the game. We have to be able to react according to the game situation, which will change all the time. A code of ethics will either make our options too limited in times of crisis, or slow the game down while we change it as each new situation arrises.

If there a decisions we dislike because of an ethical reason, we will say so on the boards, we will say so in the poll threads, and we can vote out the ministers who's ethics we question. We already have a sufficient ethical code by having the ability to remove ministers, we just haven't talked about it as such before now.

[jdjdjd]

Only one problem with the poll, it should have started as yes and no, if yes wins, then a clarifying poll would be needed. Right now, the yes votes are split and the no is winning. (sort of like Al Gore wishing he had those few Ralph Nadar votes).

[OPD]

Originally posted by mtgillespie
The poll is wrong.

I agree the poll is flawed.

Possibly due to an anti ethics conspiracy or more likely due to an oversight.

The pro ethics opinion is split into two whereas the anti opinion isn't.

Analogy: Who do you want to be president?
Gore
Clinton
Bush
Republican vote split.

At the moment although a total of 15 people are pro ethics and 14 are against the anti vote wins because the pro votes are split into 12 and 3.

Suggestion - After election closes. A re-vote should be staged if A + B > C but C is still the modal group.