Should we freeze the ACPSG?

Maniac · November 2, 2003, 18:40

In the month of September the ACDTG was humming of activity. During that time the idea was proposed to start a second "ACDG", this time back a single player game. It took a while to get things organized, but finally we managed to get our own forum and our own special scenario.
Since then however the activity has stayed at a very low pace. Despite the many A's and B's in my "Your participation rate?" poll, I can only observe there are hardly any discussions or polls organized about game matters. The ACDTG seems to be suffering from a similar inactivity, where several of the "veteran members" are too busy IRL and can't spend as much time anymore on Apolyton. There have been similar periods where there was a low activity in the ACDTG, and after a while the activity increased again, but this time the inactivity here in the ACPSG has been lasting right from the start of the game.
Therefore I was wondering if we should freeze the ACPSG until more members become active again. I certainly want this game to go on, but it is impossible to continue the ACPSG right now if there aren't any polls and discussions.

Nubclear · November 2, 2003, 20:57

I'm the only one whos voted in this poll. After all this time.

Which STRONGLY indicates that yes, we should.

AdamTG02 · November 2, 2003, 21:06

It's been two hours. Give it time.

As for myself, I'm withholding my vote until I see whether this stirs up any activity in the forum. It hasn't yet, to any significant degree...

Vander · November 2, 2003, 22:48

I have not been here for the weekend just because of a very busy weekend. As for the inactivity, I could try to throw together a RP thread or something...

Octavian X · November 3, 2003, 02:43

Yes, it is a new game. Just give it a little time, some TLC, and it should be fine.

BTW, I wasn't there due to homework problems...

Lemmy · November 3, 2003, 06:08

Don't freeze. I didn't have much time lately to post because of personal reason and exam period....and also the lack of a savegame. At least i couldn't find one, so i assumed we didn't start the game yet...

But i just saw the turn report thread and i'll get the savegame from there.

Drogue · November 3, 2003, 14:57

I think we shouldn't. I haven't had much time lately either, but that will pick up, since I should have more time soon.

Nubclear · November 4, 2003, 03:09

Yay! It's been defeated.

Now we can all go back to sleep

MrWhereItsAt · November 4, 2003, 09:10

I monitor the place, having been one of the two people who started this initiative (along with Darkness' Edge). Am unsure where he got to, but I have long since realised that the victors in polls were not what I wanted at all. I feel there is/will be too much RP, and the Politburo thing is just weird to me. I also object (partly for historical reasons of my own

) to a Constitution.

Thus, although all of these are just personal and I could never expect a whole game to change just to accommodate me, these are the reasons why I am not active in a game I so wanted to have set up.

Maniac · November 4, 2003, 16:54

MWIA, how would you organize a game without some rules (a constitution) to prevent possible conflict (as in the first ACDG) and to make things flow more easier?

Also, I don't see why you couldn't ignore the RP and only participate in in-game discussions.

Lemmy, if you still want the initial scenario file, there's a download link to it in the FAQ, under "How do I join?".

Anyway, it's clear there is a majority for not freezing the game. In that case, please note that I will not "force" officials to post their polls and discussions. This is a voluntary effort. Me complaining to officials all the time would only reduce the fun of this ACPSG for those officials, and we already have a shortage of people willing to take some initiatives as it is.

AdamTG02 · November 4, 2003, 17:57

The caveat to that, if I may presume to say so, is that the active members of the Politburo may choose to go forward without your input.

The Chairman and General Secretary have emergency powers for good reason. But it would be tragic if this turned into a game of only a few active people. So let's not let that happen.

Maniac · November 4, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

The caveat to that, if I may presume to say so, is that the active members of the Politburo may choose to go forward without your input.

Go forward with what without my input?

Quote:

The Chairman and General Secretary have emergency powers for good reason.

Emergency powers are useful if one or two officials are temporary unable to organize polls and write orders, to prevent the game from stalling, and thus prevent decreasing the fun for all other remaining active participants. Emergency powers aren't meant IMHO to act completely on our own without any input from other ACPSG participants, like GT, you and I had to do during the last chat.

jtsisyoda · November 4, 2003, 19:05

I was originally very interested in the PS idea, but after the polls for how to work it with the officials and politburo, and seeing how it started, I don't really 'get it'. It's different than ACDTG (I wasn't in the first ACDG). I haven't voted on this poll, because I basically don't feel like I'm in this game and don't feel like I should vote. I wanted to be in it, but it's not what I expected.

Maniac · November 4, 2003, 19:13

MWIA and jtsisyoda, what exactly do you find so weird about the official and politburo system that you don't get it? Just wondering how things are perceived by relative "outsiders".

jtsisyoda · November 4, 2003, 19:15

First tell me what you don't understand about electron spin matrices, then I'll answer your question.

MrWhereItsAt · November 4, 2003, 19:36

I can't say I've given the Politburo thing much thought, but it is an additional layer of authority on the usual Ministers - President/Vice President of DGs that I am unused to, so it is new to me. Maybe an understanding of the whys and whats of this will come to me with time.

Rules I certainly agree with the need for - in a sense. I guess I always want the DGs to be played much the same as the Civ2DG is and always has been - no Constitution, merely a set of guidelines as to which Minister does what, and we can all get on with it. I have fought lost battles many times in the Civ3DG about Constitutions, and I am happy to say the Con there is a Constitution in name only, as we have not consulted it for a loooong time. When turns are played, they are done so without the controversy had when the rules controlled all. There are no major conflicts, and if someone has an issue they raise it and it is worked out to mutual satisfaction. Rules always have exceptions.

Ignore the RP? I can but try, but it sometimes feels as if I should use some else I am bringing down the fun for others.

Quote:

...electron spin matrices

ARGH! Keep those 'orrible things away from me! I understand their use in some fields (basic QM for example), but they typify trouble for me with things like Gauge theories.

AdamTG02 · November 4, 2003, 22:17

Ghh. This is what happens when I post in a hurry.

To clarify, the Chairman has the power to play turns in an emergency; i.e. when no orders have been received by a turnchat. This was done in the last turnchat, because no orders were posted.

I was not addressing General Secretary Maniac; I was addressing the members of the Council of Ministers. As a Politburo member who is not a minister, who is interested in the success of the Hive, I wanted to make sure they understood that others will pick up their duties if they do not perform them. I was overly confrontational, and for this I apologize. I simply wanted to make clear that for those who want to be part of the political life of the Hive, given the results of this poll, it seems you'll have to post orders.

I presumed to speak for the General Secretary and the Chairman, and for this again I apologize. I hope that the other worthy members of the Central Committee, especially the ministers, will not hold against me a comment made in haste.

FlameFlash · November 5, 2003, 15:46

No!

Maniac · November 6, 2003, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I can't say I've given the Politburo thing much thought, but it is an additional layer of authority on the usual Ministers - President/Vice President of DGs that I am unused to, so it is new to me. Maybe an understanding of the whys and whats of this will come to me with time.

Though the ACPSG Politburo may at first seem unorthodox compared to the government structures of democracy games, it isn't that radically new. Let's have a look at what the constitutional proposal says about the Politburo:

Quote:

The members of the Politburo are appointed by the General Secretary, the Chairman of the Politburo. The Politburo can at most consist out of nine members. Criteria for selection are political influence, activity rate (especially on turnchats) and representation of the most important political tendencies. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers is an automatic member of the Politburo though.
Tasks and functions:

In case of a constitutional issue, the judges for the Supreme Court will be volunteers of the Politburo.
A majority of the Politburo can veto any decision of an executive government official.

The Politburo doesn't really have that much to do. Judges have to be chosen out of the Buro, and they can veto decisions, which was also an ability of judges in the first ACDG. So just talking functionally you can simply consider the Politburo of the ACPSG the Supreme Court of the ACDG.
A big difference is that the Politburo (and thus the judges) are appointed by the General Secretary, and not by elections every two months as in the ACDG. But I believe that's an improvement, as in the previous ACDG it happened several times that people who were elected Judges were no longer active two months later. Now the General Secretary can appoint the most active members Politburo members, so judges will always be sufficiently available, and it can be quickly decided without much judicial bureaucracy if an order is eg unconstitutional and thus needs to be vetoed.
Besides that the Politburo also performs an important RP function. After all you can't have a decent police state without a party elite who supposedly controls everything!

Quote:

Rules I certainly agree with the need for - in a sense. I guess I always want the DGs to be played much the same as the Civ2DG is and always has been - no Constitution, merely a set of guidelines as to which Minister does what, and we can all get on with it.

Despite the formalities of our constitution, I think you can consider it a set of informal guidelines as well. The most important part is telling what each official does. There's another big part about Courts, but those are rarely needed, and there's also a big part about polls, but unless there are some conflicts about SE for instance, those neither need to be followed that strictly IMHO. The constitution is handy to refer to if there is a conflict, but if everything goes fluently, it doesn't need to be brought up.

Quote:

I have fought lost battles many times in the Civ3DG about Constitutions, and I am happy to say the Con there is a Constitution in name only, as we have not consulted it for a loooong time. When turns are played, they are done so without the controversy had when the rules controlled all. There are no major conflicts, and if someone has an issue they raise it and it is worked out to mutual satisfaction. Rules always have exceptions.

Indeed. But the Consciousness is a smaller group, and since we all chose the same faction, we probably automatically agree on most things. For a (hopefully

) larger game with more opportunity for disagreement I find it handy to have something to fall back upon.

AdamTG:

Quote:

for this again I apologize. I hope that the other worthy members of the Central Committee, especially the ministers, will not hold against me a comment made in haste.

Don't worry. I just cancelled my order to Hercules to eliminate you. You can rest assured.

Darkness' Edge · November 9, 2003, 01:20

I'm glad to see that a non-team game got going again, but the overriding roleplay element is a bit of a turn-off.

*runs back to obscurity*

Nubclear · November 9, 2003, 02:36

Haha. There really is no more roleplay here

In fact, this is pretty much a spam town.

+1

MrWhereItsAt · November 9, 2003, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
I'm glad to see that a non-team game got going again, but the overriding roleplay element is a bit of a turn-off.

*runs back to obscurity*

HA! Interesting to see we both agree. Ironically, it appears in our efforts to start a SPDG weunwittingly unleashed what became something different.

Like Soviet Union - Lenin would certainly not have expected what happened there under Stalin!

Er, not that I'm really comparing you guys to... oh forget it.

Pandemoniak · November 9, 2003, 14:34

Quote:

Now the General Secretary can appoint the most active members Politburo members, so judges will always be sufficiently available, and it can be quickly decided without much judicial bureaucracy if an order is eg unconstitutional and thus needs to be vetoed.

I simply love it. Who said police states were inefficient ? :nasty:
Thats also the main point for any dictatorship. Whats the point losing time to talk and chat when you can be as efficient ? And in what name can you trust the weak masses of voters when you are not sure the elected person can do its job properly, says Yang ?

Nubclear · November 9, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Pandemoniak

I simply love it. Who said police states were inefficient ? :nasty:
Thats also the main point for any dictatorship. Whats the point losing time to talk and chat when you can be as efficient ? And in what name can you trust the weak masses of voters when you are not sure the elected person can do its job properly, says Yang ?

Pandemoniak!!!!