Democracy Game: government positions

[Locutus]

Thanks for your explanations on the turns, adaMada & TKG, that clarifies a few things... I think the best solution would be to play for a certain number of turns, but have the exact number depend on the in-game situation. In the early game it's probably easily possible to play 20 in one stretch without having too much exciting stuff happening, later on in the game a lot of things can happen in just five turns...

Originally posted by adaMada
To be honest, I quite perfer having a core set of ministers who can delegate responsibilities if need be. Though I understand the reason to have a flexible system, it seems like every distruction/creation of a ministry will be a fight, and I think it'll be inefficent in that people won't want to get rid of ministries as soon as they become obsolete, and ministries will only become obsolete or needed slowly -- there probably won't be any one huge event that'll signal the need or lack of for a minister. That's why I like assigning the base powers to four elected officials, and letting them 'delegate down'.

I read the new C3DG constitution and I must say I really like that system too (In large outlines It's quite similar to the ACDG Constitution BTW )

mapfi,
I guess we'll have to have a vote on that voting issue The only problem is, will that vote be an anonymous one or not?

Gilgamensch,
I guess were gonna have to have a brainstorm session on names

On the government choosing: I meant that I think the President (or whatever he'll be called) should be responsible for running polls and stuff on this issue. It goes without saying that all players should be consulted on this issue. But rather than leaving it to the Minister of Domestic Affairs (or whoever) to advise the President on this, the President could work on this himself. But when polls don't give conclusive results or there is no time for polls, the President could decide for himself...

One thing I would like to 'change' is, to move the part 'what to do with conquered cities' over to the Supreme Commander. I would say it is his call to enslave a resisting population or enlarge our Empire.

I disagree, that city could become a vital part of the economy, as could the slaves that can come from it when the population is enslaved or the gold/PW when it's razed. The Supreme Commander has nothing to do with the economy, so such an important economic decision should not be his call IMHO.

All 'moves' from the GD and PA's do be posted before, so that WE could run a poll/meeting at a certain time....whatever..., trying to stop an action which WE wouldn't like ( like with 66%/75% majority). WE are ruling (I hope )

IMHO ALL decisions by the cabinet normally have to be approved by the General Assembly of citizens. Only if unexpected things happen in the middle of playing the game should they be able to make their own decisions...

[Gilgamensch]

Locutus,

Normally throughout history, yes the Supreme commander had general orders how to 'take care' of new citizens, but their were many occasions, even in recent history, were those 'suggestions' were not followed by the local military command.

So in other words, yes the PA/GA (or whatever ), could give the general order, but I think, the decision at the moment of freeing our neighbours, should be taken by the commander, according to the guidelines/commands given by the government. Afterwards we can always bring up a jury/tribunal/.... which will decide if our (ex-)supreme-commander was within his limits or if he should be executed right away.

This would, I think, keep the people a bit more involved also on the military site........

Leaving in general the 'final' decision to the GA, I think is not such a good idea. JUST imaging we would have a corrupted idiotic stupid .... (I think you know what I mean) GA, he could, with overruling, bring us down to zero. And we would have not a lot of chance (in short time) to stop him from doing it. If we distribute the 'power' a bit between the top, would work out better.
BUT still: final decision should be to US, the 'civilisation.

For the names: I will open up two new threats (no polls yet) were we can discuss our names (country/government)

Was to late for one Turambar was quicker here they are:

discuss our name

Discuss our leaders name

[Rasbelin]

I could be interested being a historian or newspaper editor (or whatever news manager you have), but as you may understand, I'm working on other things too, so I assume I won't have time for that much participation in the CtP2DG as a governmental person, but the suggestions posted so far have been IMO good. At least I second Lemmy's minister suggestions.

[Turambar]

Perhaps if we plan to take a city before the turns are played out, a poll could go up to let people decide what to do with it before it is taken?

[Pedrunn]

My votes:

Positions as needed, yey! decided by poll created by the President when he wants to (or is forced to want by the citzens )
Public save games. yey! Why hide???
No constitution, yey! Just a few law (about 5) should be ok. We could add more as time goes. But i dont want to bother reading something like a constitution or even trying to do one :yuk:
Official Historian needed, yey! But volunteers could narrate some happenings (specially the ones that wnat this position in the next elections).

Keep in mind we need attractive stuff for new citzens to come. Not repellers

The so wanted minister of foregn relations has to have the power over trade too since those two stuff has to be related. I dot think it is too much to him to choose the research from time to time So the locutus minister is fine.
But i think he should also control the special units except the settlers and transporters.
And I think research should go for the Minister who deals the macromanagement (domestic affairs now) so this make the Minister of Trade and Diplomacy only electable after having meeting with more than two civs or after having a straight relation with one or have a special unit and meet a civ. We shouldnt start with one.

But i would split the Misnister of domestic affairs into two:
Misnister of macromanagement --> for empire tabs, science, and PW issues)
Misnister of Micromanagement --> Manage all cities (this really is too much work we do need a separate minister for this)

I still feel divide by who should control settlers and conquered cities

Istead of supreme commander. I rather call him Minister of defense.

So here is the summary for a the start:
President
Minister of Micromanagement (or whatever you want to call)
Minister of Macromanagement (or whatever you want to call)
Minister of Defense.
Official Historian.

--Minister of foreigh Relations on hold)

[Gilgamensch]

Pedrunn is quite right, why not having only a few laws and let's add on later (if needed). Western hemisphere was using for quite a while only 10 laws .

Pegrunn I gonna copy your suggestions (names) over to the other threat.

And Turambar: Your idea 'would' reflect that WE are the soldiers as well So the MoD/supreme commander gives the order and we decide if we follow, sounds like fun , espacially if we don't follow his orders ......

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
Western hemisphere was using for quite a while only 10 laws .

Assuming that you are talking about the United States Bill of Rights, this is not accurate. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution

[Lemmy]

Maybe a breakdown of all the areas and the workload is usefull
Different areas

Empire setting - wages, rations, workday, pw percentage, government type (little work, a few polls now and then)
City build orders (lot of work, organizing polls etc)
Military units - land, sea and air units, creating armies (lot of work, polling on targets, and army composition)
Special units - Settlers, Diplomats, Clerics etc(little work, depending on the amount of units)
Trade - creating trade routes (very little work, polling on trade routes when there are caravans)
Science - choosing techs to research (very little work, a poll once every few turns)
Foreign Affairs - trading maps, creating treaties etc. (little work at first, could become more later on)
Terraforming/Infrastructure - farms, mines, roads etc.(lot of work, many polls needed, on avg one for each city, if there is enough PW off course)

[Lemmy]

Then the positions and their responsebilities could be:

President
- Empire settings (little work)
- Running the game (lot of work?)

Minister of Defense
- Military Units (lot of work)
- Special units (not so much work)

Minister of Domestic Affairs
- City build orders (lot of work)
- Science (little work)

Minister of Infrastructure
- Terraforming/Infrastructure (lot of work)
- Trade (little work)

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by centrifuge
Assuming that you are talking about the United States Bill of Rights, this is not accurate. The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution

I thought he meant the 10 commandments. But they were hardly in the western hemisphere...

[centrifuge]

Good point, they are the basis for many laws of western civilization (but hemisphere?)

[mapfi]

I just think the military commander has enough power with all the combat units at his disposal, so don't give him the special units.

I don't want our LAUWF (Lemurian Agency for Uncoventional WarFare) to be ruled by the armed forces!

[child of Thor]

The 'Kings' power should be reflected in the type of government we run with in the actual game - so i would guess that in the early stages his power would be greater rather than less. As we evolve into more modern forms of government the democratic process should expand and the people's voice should have more power (or be made to seem to have more power ). So a despot is actually that and a Democracy is what it is? This also may be more fun to play as power struggles between the Ruler and his people could have a chance to flourish. I mean are YOU going to be happy working 14hr days for low wages?
And positions will evolve as the government structure gets more complex.
Hmmm maybe this would be too much work for the trial game???? Maybe later?

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Locutus
I read the new C3DG constitution and I must say I really like that system too (In large outlines It's quite similar to the ACDG Constitution BTW )

Trying to check this once a day. If anyone has any questions for me and I seem to be forgetting to check this thread, feel free to poke me with a stick or PM (whichever is more convienent).

I honestly don't know what the ACDG constitution is like -- never played AC, so I can't really follow the stuff going on there . Having said that, on ours -- the latest, most ironed out draft will be posted sometime in the next few days. There will probably be some sort of graphical aid to the new governmental powers posted around the same time (any subscribers to the Jungle Gazette probably have a rough idea of what I mean, though they don't know everything ), and that might help you guys come up with a plan, since it outlines the most important powers of our government while also not requiring that you read eight pages of text .

Just FYI.

-- adaMada

[Locutus]

Good analysis, Lemmy I must say I *really* like that suggestion for ministers, but there's one problem: you left out Diplomacy. It would make a lot of sense to put Diplomacy and Unconvential Warfare under the position of a new minister: the Minister of Foreign Affairs (after all, UW deals with foreign nations and it can greatly affect diplomacy). Although I *really* like such a system, it does mean our government has 5 rather than 4 cabinet members...

I really like the Civ3 system of allowing the ministers to appoint lackeys deputies when things get too busy as well, it combines the advantages of creating ministers when they needed and having a fixed core group of ministers.

One important thing we haven't discussed yet is the judicial branch: the Supreme Court (or whatever we want to call it). I'll start a seperate thread about that so we can limit this discussion to the executive branch of government.

CoT,
Hmm, in itself a nice idea but the game we play is a Democracy Game, so even though our in-game government may not always be a democracy, we should at least ensure the organisation in the forum in Democratic. If the Ministers get too much power and abuse it, it won't exactly encourage non-government members to participate and polls and stuff (since they probably won't be listened to), which takes away much of the fun.

Pedrunn,
Every game needs rules, including the Democracy Game. In our game these rules are set in the Constitution, we can't do without it. Of course, our Constitution doesn't have to be nearly as long and complex are a real constitution or even the C3DG Constitution (or the CFC one ), but we do need to establish what rights and duties everyone has and what procedures to follow to play this game properly. The ACDG and C3DG Constitutions merely state what responsibilities the 3 branches of government have (executive (ministers), legislative (citizens) and judicial (judges)) and how elections, impeachment and conflicts of laws should be handled. All these things have to be arranged in our game as well, or chaos will inevitably follow.

Turambar,
That goes without saying. But the issue here is, who should be responsible for holding that poll? (And who should decide when a city is taken unexpectedly when there's no time for a poll).

Gilgamensch,
Hmm, although I agree that impeaching ministers or commanders from time to time can be fun, I think we shouldn't deliberately design the rules to promote ministers to abuse their powers. Since the decision of what to do with a new city affects the economy and the economy only (well, in the long run anyway), such a decision should not be made by the military. But I guess we're gonna have to have a poll on that