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.

[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

[GodKing]

Once the ammendment is written (if it is written) then it must pass by 2/3. For now, the concept of moving forward in this direction a simple majority should suffice.
Yes (a & B)
No (c)

[Apocalypse]

Ethics should not be forced upon us. If they aren't in the consitution, then they could play a part in daily politics and keep this game interesting.

[OPD]

Hmmmmn

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

[Spiffor]

GodKing :
You might find this poll flawed, but this is a poll for amendment (as tated explicitely in the title of the thread, and in Trip's first post).
There's currently a debate on how to include ethics (if ethics must be included at all), and several solutions have been given : inclusion in the constitution, each party develops its own ethics, each minister develops its own ethics etc.
This very poll is about including ethics in the constitution. That's why it need a 2/3 vote.

[Jon Shafer]

Thank you muchly Spiffy, first for reading, and second for explaining.

As he has said (and I tried to comment on, but I submitted my reply, Apolyton hiccuped, and my post got lost in 'the place'), it's an amendment, if certain things are to be required of our conduct. Nothing specific yet, but if we are to be required to do something, then it has to be an amendment. If it's not required, then it's not in the Constitution. And that's all this poll is asking: should we be required to have a Code of Ethics that must be followed?

As far as the poll, I've gone over many times how the grouping system works, check out my polling addition to the Constitution if you're not sure how it works.

[iain]

i take it that the outcome of this poll is YES with 18 votes,
am i correct?

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, that is correct. But like Spiffy said, since it's an amendment it needs at least 2/3 of all votes to pass, not just 51%.

[iain]

fair enough, however that is not to say ethics cannot cme into play. someone disagrees with an action on grounds of ethics they can vote against it.

[Kuciwalker]

How do ethics and government mix? Aren't they mutually exclusive?

[GePap]

I made this suggestion in the ethics thread, but I will make it again:

Even if a constituionaly binding code of ethics oes not pass, as it seems unlikely, the individual political parties may write their own party platforms on the issue and post those. Thus, those that want a moral game can make thier choice felt in the ballot box if not on the constitution.

[Robber Baron]

I say no to a constitutional code of ethics. Constitutions should frame government on a structural level (e.g, responsibilites and powers of ministers). Concepts like code of ethics should be determined democratically and organically, in the stream of play.

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
I say no to a constitutional code of ethics. Constitutions should frame government on a structural level (e.g, responsibilites and powers of ministers).

I agree but..

The US banned slavery in its constitution, and established universial sufferage, as well.

The amendment should only state that we will play with ethics as defined in a seperate list such as....

Respect each other
Never play ahead
Our word is our bond
Slavery for/against
To raze or not to raze
etc...

Originally posted by Robber Baron
Concepts like code of ethics should be determined democratically and organically, in the stream of play.

I agree.

Just imagine when we need to figure out if we want to build universal sufferage or some other GW and we get into the ethical debate over it

I like idea of the various parties posting their ethics that its members subscribe to. I am an Indy, so understand that my ethics would not be represented on an instituional level. that would be OK. I have my own voice.

Organiclly develped code of ethics is about right. I do feel that to do it right we nee a "living, growing document" stating our current ethics. It should be reviseable by 50% votes, no more than twice in an administration.

My 2 cents

Mss

[Kuciwalker]

There should be no document. If it is a thread-level thing, everyone will just sort of "know" about it.

[Robber Baron]

Manic:
Good point about the U.S. Constitution.
Although it bears pointing out that as originally conceived, the U.S. Constitution allowed (indeed codified, though indirectly) slavery. And sufferage was not universal. (Originally, it was based on state requirements; and most states only allowed property holders to vote.)
So again, this stuff tends to emerge/evolve organically, as it has in the U.S.
As we are now positioned, we aren't ready to live by sweeping ethical proscriptions.