Govt Model v.2 (contd.)

[roquijad]

Hi Twinge.

Although I'm "in charge" of the govt part, I've been away for a couple of months, checking the forums like twice a month. I won't be able to participate intensively in Clash until March/April. So please be patient with me. In the meantime, I strongly recommend aiming to Axi all questions about the govt model, since he's the co-author and understands all the details.


On to your points:

Majorities/Minorities: I think I chose very badly the names for these categories of people since many people in the forums have taken the "typical/usual" meaning of them rather than following the definition I put in the model. That's I guess the source for your disagreement.

Majorities are all the people who can participate in the govt. Minorities are all the people who don't participate at all in the govt.

Based on that definition, it's senseless to say that minorities can/should have some level of power. Because if they do have some power, then they're in majorities, by definition.

Using the same definition, your US case is solved: White and black people is within majorities. The problem you see is because your using your "usual" idea for the term "minorities" and therefore you're considering blacks within minorities.

As I said, it's a problem of wording that I foolishly created because of my choice of names. But once one uses the majorities and minorities terms according to the definitions, everything works and has sense.

It should be noticed that the model doesn't handle societies where different people have different levels of participation in govt. That is, the usual concept of minorities (as with blacks in the US today) is not handled. Once a group of people has earned the chance to participate in govt, they do it in equal terms as any other. This was decided so only to simplify the model.


"True" Democracy: It's already included in the sense that it's perfectly possible to put it in and it'd work just like you say. But through conversations here in the forums I've noticed people don't like much the idea of loosing control of their civ, so although it's possible, maybe in the standard game you'll see a democratic regime that wouldn't be so different from a tyranny. Fortunately, the way the systems works, makes it extremely easy to customize this for player's preferences.


Discrimination: I'm not sure what's your criticism here. I'll take your last phrase: "Your Civilization hates all Asians, but they're still fine because the belive in Jedaism". I suppose you're asking what happens if people is discriminated by one side, but they're not on the other. The answer is if you're discriminated in any way, then you're discriminated. It's really how hate "works". If I hate you because of your ethnicity, I don't care if you have a religion I tolerate. I hate you anyway, because you have something I hate (your ethnicity).


Representation and Knowledge Level: It's very important to have both variables because they model different things. Although in some cases like the one you mention a certain effect can be achieved using any of the two variables, in other cases you need a clear difference to get another effect.
KL handles popular knowledge about a type of regime, while Representation handles how biased people in govt is regarding the known regimes.
Imagine the USSR. While the people in govt was anti-democratic, the democratic system was known by the people. This allows the game to model how pissed off people can be because their country is not a democracy (assuming they like democracy), while still keep the govt line anti-democratic. If we collapse both variables into one we can't have this effect. Controlling it through the KL alone as you propose, would make people unaware of the existence of an alternative system, making them more passive.
It's important to have both because they play different roles.

quote: And on the negotiating thing, there should be some sort of limit to how often you can do it or disadvantages to doing it often in a short time.

doing what? a negotiation? why should negotiations create disadvantages? The US govt works like that every single day!! (remember that in this model a govt consists of all institutions/people involved in defining govt policies, so the US govt in clash includes the senate, which is an instance of continous negotiations).
The "negotiation" in the model is the system through which changes ocurr in the govt structure and its policies. Maybe it's again a bad choice for a name. The negotiation is the decision-making process that involves the ruler and any other entity/person with a piece of power. It must take place all the time. It's the only way in real life to produce a decision when the govt is not run by a single guy.


I hope all that helped.
Welcome to Clash, Twinge!

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Rodrigo!

I hope everything's great with you.

I had forgotten your definition of majority/minority... I suggest at the least that they be put in the glossary in bold with your definitions clearly marked. I think its also a bit confusing that there is a huge functional gap between ED=0 and ED=1 even though the scale has many levels. That is because for ED=0 everyone's in the govt but for ED=1 only the chosen few are. IMO the scale should probably allow for more in-between states ideally. Whether that's practical or desirable we can address in playtesting I guess.

I kinda think we should think up another name for your majority/minority definitions, since even if you clearly state it, people are going to misinterpret IMO. "Minority" has a Very clear meaning in the States that is different from yours. Sorry I didn't raise this objection sooner... What you are doing is effectively like saying, "In my model the word 'red' will now mean what we used to call 'blue' and vice versa. Although it is properly defined, people are going to revert to the old definition through habit IMO. This will add unneeded confusion to your excellent model. And since it is much more complicated than most players are used to, we need to avoid that sort of misunderstanding. One possiblility for words that would replace majority/minority is Included/Excluded. Anyone have suggestions for possible alternates just as a point of discussion?

[Twinge]

Ok, I read through the whole thing and don't remeber ever reading majorities and minorities defined clearly... so that clears things up.

quote: The answer is if you're discriminated in any way, then you're discriminated. It's really how hate "works". If I hate you because of your ethnicity, I don't care if you have a religion I tolerate. I hate you anyway, because you have something I hate (your ethnicity).

That's not what I saw defined in the model! It looked to me like they had to be discrimated in both religion & ethnically to be "refused". You might of changed it or I might of read it wrong, but that's why I found it wrong... I read it as I said: If you have 10 ED & 0 RD then people are still fine with you. As I said, this might of been changed, but that's how I read it.

And on the negotiation thing: It just seems like you could abuse changing it too often. (Drastic changes, anyway) I mean, if you could just change the settings every turn and make it one turn a lot of settings all the way up and the next all the way down and the next all the way up again, just seems a bit.... weird.

quote: 01001101 01100101 01110010 01110010 01111001 00100000 01000011 01101000 01110010 01101001 01110011 01110100 01101101 01100001 01110011 00100001

[roquijad]

Hi Mark. Yes I think too the best way to go is changing names to avoid confusion. I don't know what would be the best choice. I don't know those words F_Smith's proposes... (need my english dictionary!!! )

About the discrete changes in ED & RD, you're right. Continious variables would give us a better feel. I admit I don't like either the way I managed discrimination. In the future I'll re-think that part and make some proposals for an alternative system. For now, at least we have something concrete that works.

Twinge: I recall the definitions were there... Maybe I'm wrong. And I confirm: just one-sided discrimination is enough to be considered "out". If there was another thing in the document, that's an error.

About negotiation, it'd be really strange to change everything one turn and then again the next because those variables are meant to be grand strategy issues. Anyway, it wouldn't work. That's because the govt profile takes time to change to its new shape. As stated in the model, the player plays the ruler, setting his preferences, while it's the negotiation method (taking into account ruler's prefs and classes prefs) the process that makes the govt evolve. And this negotiation takes some turns. The model actually forces the process to last some years in order to avoid bizarre effects. Of course the player will have the option to make some "brutal" changes using the Special Actions, at some risk and cost, but in general things are smooth.

[F_Smith]

Hi, Guys:

Can I suggest 'enfranchised' and 'disenfranchised', for the two terms?

I believe that describes the split accurately.

[Mark_Everson]

F_Smith:

Enfranchised was the first word that came to my mind too. But its not a very common word, esp. for the non-native speakers as Rodrigo says, so I settled for the other choice.

Rodrigo:

Glad to hear that you thought my suggestions were ok. I'm looking forward to see what you come up with on the ED thing. As you say, its not a 'show stopper'.

[Gary Thomas]

Just a note to let those who are interested know that I have offered to take over the coding for the social/government model.

Just as soon as I finish the technology coding (and that is close).

Cheers

Gary Thomas

[Jordan A]

Im slowling working my way thought the library of knowledge you guys have created
I came upon the Government Model and there is something bothering about the power division

The curch is given 3% control, now this seems hardly reasonable, if your not familiar the catholic church post roman empire pre rennesance basicaly had more power than the king himself. The power (and subsequent abuse of power) was insane! Howerver early roman times, before emperor constantine making christianity the official roman religion the emporor was in fact the one and only god, so his ruling was in fact the ruling of god. This is also the case with egyptian.

And as you have more than likley noticed the control the church has in present time is dwindling.

My proposed solution is that as you advance through the different stages in history the poitical power is varied, different amounts for each period.

The user could be informed of this as he progresses, so that he changes his style of play. This could also keep the player on his toes when it comes to keeping his followers loyal.

[LDiCesare]

quote: Originally posted by Jordan A on 04-30-2001 10:37 PM The curch is given 3% control, now this seems hardly reasonable, if your not familiar the catholic church post roman empire pre rennesance basicaly had more power than the king himself. The power (and subsequent abuse of power) was insane! Howerver early roman times, before emperor constantine making christianity the official roman religion the emporor was in fact the one and only god, so his ruling was in fact the ruling of god. This is also the case with egyptian.

Your point is quite good for Europe Middle Ages, because Church had power. However, it is mainly because the Pope had also a lot of military and land power. The other examples I don't like because church power is not god-power. In the Roman empire, the church(es) had very little power. In Egypt, they had some, but it was often antagonist to the Pharaoh's.

Here is a suggestion: Church power depends on 2 factors: imortance of religion in the EG, and "divine" aspect of the ruler.
I mean: Importance of religion changes over time, and varies with EGs.
If the leader is "divine" (Pharaoh, Emperor, Queen of England), he is the leader of the church, so part of the religious influence is given to him rather than the church.
This doen't answer your concern wholly because I think that the fact that priests came from nobility gave them more power in the Middle Ages and I don't know how to model that.

[axi]

Jordan A: Errr, I think you've got it quite wrong. The 3% you saw in that table in the v.3 model is just an example, which could have been from anyplace and anytime. The political power of the church (or more correctly the ethic Political Block) will be an item of constant negotiation among the various social classes, whose point of view about the issue will depend on social advances and whether the characteristics of the Dominant Religion mach those of the main EGs present. None of these numbers you see will be hardcoded. You have to study the model a little bit harder.

------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

[roquijad]

Hi Axi. I see you have done your reading on version 3... Any thoughts/tomatoes yet?

Jordan: Thanks for your comment. I hope you give us more feedback. Axi is correct: the power of each entity is variable, so you'll get the effects you're looking for. In fact, how much power the church has depends on things like the Importance of Religion attribute of ethnic groups, as Cesaire says.

and welcome to the project!

Rodrigo

[axi]

Well, the changes that you have done in this version are mainly in model organisation, generalisation and terminology. What I would like to see is the missing parts of the model beeing added most of them were missing in v.2 too).

Concerning the worker's PB, I insist that we should include the capability of appointing them political power. Historically this only happened during the short terms of the proletarian revolutions, where the nobility and capitalists were suppressed (Paris Commune - 1870, Russian Soviets 1917-1921), Catalonia 1936) and replaced by ruling formations consisting explicitly of the working class or were at least forced to grant more political power to both the greater public and to the working class in particular, in order to appease them (France 1848-1850, where the king was replaced by a constitutional convention, where all social classes were represented; however there was the "Luxemburg committee" instituted, which was the instrument of the working class for creating legislation and institutions that would benefit the working class in particular. Of course this commitee lost it's power quickly, it's members were all arrested with various pretexts and it was ultimately abolished after the June 1848 revolt.)

So it's not only in Marxist revolutionary theory that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is introduced; it is more or less existant in every society with class-conscient workers. Labor is the most important factor of production (because it is the only one that has it's own free will) and when it acts coherently, it can wrench a big portion of power out of the hands of the other classes. Even in our societies, a successful general strike can bring a government to it's knees and dictate policies; this sort of thing is happening right now in my country, since a very strict insurance law was introduced by the government.

I know that these things I have recited are not new to you, but it's the first thing that struck my eye 9wht else would it be? )

Oh and besides, I'm for the scientists power too, as an option for the scenario builder. Hail to the illuminati!

------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

[roquijad]

[This is my reply to Yoav's comments on the govt model made in the social model's thread]

A tiny thing first: The "RCM" doesn't exist in version 3, so don't worry about that problem.

Now to your main criticism: It's true, the biggest problem with the govt model was that the player was forced to "cheat" and to go into trial and error in the interface to get what he wanted. To solve it, the following system was created:

Step1: PB's negotiate (weighted sum) policies, w/o considering the ruler. A "preliminary" govt profile is so created.

Step2: The preliminary govt profile is "presented" to the ruler. Let's assume PrivateProperty was presented as 40% to the ruler. The ruler is now able to modify this value, making it more similar to what he wants. The magnitude in which he can alter the presented value depends on his political power. Let's assume he has 65% pol.power and assume that level of power gives him a maximum modifier of 20. So, the ruler can choose any value for PP in the range [40-20, 40+20]. Suppose the ruler wanted a PP of 55. If so, the policy is actually set at 55 because the value is within the valid range. If the ruler'd have wanted 70%, then the policy is set to the maximum he can obtain: 60. His power is not sufficient to get what he wanted.

The larger ruler's pol.power, the wider the range (the less important is what society wants in the final setting) and vise versa.

The system is saying that the rest actors decide a "reference" the ruler has to take into account. He's expected to choose a value near that reference. The less despotic he is, the more forced he is to respect that reference value. As his despotism grows, the less important the reference is.

Doing this there's no necessity of trial and error and there's no point in inputting numbers the player doesn't really want. At the same time the main philosophy of the model is preserved: the ruler won't be always all mighty and other actors can in fact help determine govt's policies.

The system you proposed is similar because you're giving the ruler the chance to pick a number in a range that was determined by the rest of political actors. But I think the current system is better because, as you yourself said it, in your system ruler's pol.power is irrelevant and I have to admit I don't like ruler's pol.power playing no role. I'd say the current system is just one step forward from your proposal.

what do you think?

[LDiCesare]

I think the median system takes pol power into account.
E.G. Consider you have 5 voters for something, they vote for values, say : 0,10,20,40,60. The median is 20, but no polpwer taken into account.
Now if you give polpowers and look where half of the PP is, you get different results: If all have 20%, the result will be 20. Here are results based on different PP repartitions:
PP 10% 10% 20% 30% 30%: Median gives 40.
PP 30% 30% 20% 10% 10%: Median gives 10.
Thus the polpwer has an effect. Actually, the only thing which bothers me is that 51% polpower means you always get what you want with this system, so in a democracy, you'd probably have very low polpower. This seems realistic to me since, for example, in France, the current government probably has no more than 30%, getting the 20 remaining from "allies".
roquijad, how do you compute your max modifier? Is it detailed on a web page?

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well i LDiCesare i think that should only be used in cases where there is only a yes/no or 1/2 type question. Like, do we declare war on country X? It should also not be used in every type of governmental systems, reguardless of pol. pow.