Amendment: Code of Ethics

[Trevman]

Forbidding ourselves from certain "atrocities" may prove to be our undoing in the future. We are fighting for our very existentence, for our sacred culture and way of life. Such "unethical" strategies might be our only avenue of victory. We cannot risk losing because we feel these bytes' pain.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by OPD
Hmmmmn

I knew that I should have read the constitution before trying to be a smart alex.

Don't worry, OPD - you aren't the only one who finds the Constitution unreadable (no offense Trip - it's just so loooong).

I have a proposal:

ethics should NOT be Constitutional past a certain point, as they are in modern life. It is not a law to be nice to people, just as for centuries slavery was legal, if not very conducive to people being nice to each other. I propose that we may add some things (eg no razing) to the Constitution, whilst having others (eg no slavery except of absolute sworn evil enemies) as hust understandings. You may say " What point is it then, as the Government could violate these unwritten ethics without fear of penalty?" Well, how about this.

Since we are going the whole political party etc. way, why don't we carry the roleplay a little further? How about every citizen roleplays a certain set of morals, and votes and posts accordingly? That why, although a Government cruelly enslaving innocent French citizens escapes impeachment, they are slammed in the press and in the discussion threads. At election time each candidate would have to state their intentions and agenda (they should really have to anyway), and everyone would vote on their assumed morals.

You could adopt a very real life sort of anti-slavery, anti-war etc. set of morals, or be the sort of blooidthirsty bastard that skywalker is (you KNOW you love it ). Although the game favours those less kindly tactics in most cases, we don't need to stick to that.

At the moment you are reading in incredulity, saying "MrWIA - are you mental? We have to escape this jungle and SURVIVE through war." Well, you can always change your morals. At the mo' I favour the vicious warpath we are planning, but later perhaps I will think we can live without the sadistic subjugation of others that some will no doubt urge us towards. Then again, I may feel they deserve it.

This need not be an aspect of the game that everyone follows, but some may want to try it (probably in the face of overwhelming ridicule ). At the very least I hope I have opened your minds to a new idea of how to milk some more fun out of this game.

Oh, and if anyone's interested in moralizing in the game and are afraid of the certain laughter, let me know and we'll stand together!

[Theseus]

Here are my ethics (from **** Marcinko, a very special US SEAL):

-I am the War Lord and the wrathful God of Combat and I will always lead you from the front, not from the rear.

-I will treat you all alike-just like ****.

-Thou shalt do nothing I will not do first, and thus will you be created Warriors in My deadly image.

-I shall punish thy bodies because the more thou sweatest in training, the less thou bleedest in combat.

-Indeed, if thou hurteth in thy efforts and thou suffer painful dings, then thou art Doing It Right.

-Thou hast not to like it-thou hast just to do it.

-Thou shalt Keep It Simple, Stupid.

-Thou shalt never assume.

-Verily, thou art not paid for thy methods, but for thy results, by which meaneth thou shalt kill thine enemy before he killeth you by any means available.

-Thou shalt, in thy Warrior's Mind and Soul, always remember My ultimate and final Commandment:There Are No Rules-Thou Shalt Win At All Cost.

[Theseus]

Lest you think otherwise, that does not mean I advocate war above all other courses.

I mean, let us do what is necessary to win.

Civ3 requires, I think, a balanced approach to all aspects of the game... especially true when faced with the daunting start we've gotten.

War when appropriate, but not war for war's sake.

Building and expansion when we can most benefit.

Not to insult anybody, but I dislike the idea of parties ploarized around these issues... rather, there should be a synthesis of styles resulting in optimum strategy.

Read Marcinko's words again, without framing him as a warmonger.

I applaud a code of ethics... within the context of realpolitik.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Don't worry, OPD - you aren't the only one who finds the Constitution unreadable (no offense Trip - it's just so loooong).

I could have made it longer.

But I strongly recommend that everyone read the Constitution thoroughly, especially if you're going to give some input on an Amendment. It would be like... running for President with having only played for a few days. After all, that's why threads like this were posted in the first place... to amend our official set of rules that we must play by.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Ahem. Everyone needs to take this eriously right now since the YES options far outweigh the NO.

It shall not drop off the page.

[JSeeds]

I can't believe yes is winning!

Adding ethics into the constitution is just going to bog down the game. If people don't want to support an action or decision because of ethical reasons, than just vote against it. That's why we call this the DEMOCRACY game, right?

[GoodFella]

Yes may be ahead, but it needs 2/3 majority, not simple majority.

And I agree with everything JSeeds said. The idea of ethics in this game is ridiculous.

[notyoueither]

Adding some of the proposed ethical rules to this game would be a very good way to write it off as unplayable/unwinable.

Do we want that?

Note to self. Next time a Civ3 demo game gets going, urge in the STRONGEST terms possible that it be played at Regent difficulty.

[GoodFella]

When does this poll close?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Ah, c'mon. This is going to be the smallest amendment to the Constitution possible - hell, the polling rules will be more confusing!

We just need to have public approval from a poll before we enslave/raze/pop-rush etc. These things should only be considered as last resorts, or the result of a vicious blood-feud - can't have the Government exerting such extremes of control over its citizens, can we? Just think of it as a control on how powerful the Govt is and how much effect Ministers' actions have on our reputation without polling for approval.

Let's say we raze a city, creating unnecessary bad feeling between nations. We try to end the war there, but because of our transgressions we can't, and end up in a spiral of resource-waste from war that loses us the game. You can bloody well bet that the blame would be laid square at the feet of either the Military Commander or President, or the whole Cabinet plus turnchat group for allowing this to go forth without public approval.

Morals aren't absolute, but if they are there it keeps the authorities in line, unless the people themselves bay for blood (and we can't always assume that will be the case).

It's just a little more power to the people, is all.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This is a "group" poll. We add up Yes1 and Yes2. If Yes1+Yes2 > No, then "Yes" wins. The "Yes" with most votes (currently Yes2) eventually wins the poll, even if it has less votes than the only "No".

However, this is an amendment. An amendment must be accepted by 2/3 of voters. Meaning the "yes" group must add 67% to pass. Currently, "yes" lead by a few votes, but not enough to amend the constitution.

Edited for clarity

Thanks

[Kuciwalker]

I like the roleplaying idea.

[Panag]

hi ,

it looks like we ought to vote again , ....

have a nice day

[Proserpine]

I agree we should have some "limited" CoE, but am still unconvinced as to the specifics. Whether or not this is a group poll as has been suggested, we need further discuss before deciding.

Where is the abstainers option (banana).