Democracy Game: government positions - Page 3

Pedrunn · October 29, 2002, 15:28

Something i dont want to see in our democracy game:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...6&pagenumber=1
(Check the number of governments in the article I)
The ACDG has 10 executive members of the govenment and 5 judicial members (the court).

And its community has only 30 citizens. About the same size as our community. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...4&pagenumber=1
This means there are a job in the gov for every two people of the government (without removing those less participative citzens).

So we must be careful not to fall in the same mistake.

Locutus · October 29, 2002, 15:55

That's exactly what I've been stressing since my very first post on the subject of DGs, Pedrunn

Currently we're looking at 4-5 Ministers (including President) and 3 Judges. Still a lot, considering that many of our Citizens have already indicated that they're not willing to run for office, but you can hardly do with less and still call it a democracy...

centrifuge · October 29, 2002, 17:03

Down with big government

F-PRO · October 29, 2002, 17:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Locutus
Still a lot, considering that many of our Citizens have already indicated that they're not willing to run for office

I would consider running for office, but I'd have to know what the various activities of the "jobs" are and how much time I would have to put in them on average.

Turambar · October 29, 2002, 18:38

I will definately run for a position.

HuangShang · October 29, 2002, 21:09

i dont want to be pres. but i'd like a position

we need some Ministers to start and add/fire some later, aight?

RunsWithDwarf · October 31, 2002, 04:46

Ok! I've read through this thread, and although I've not
read everything word-for-word I feel that I've gotten a
pretty good insight into what's happening so far, and
therefore do have some feedback, it may not be exactly
what you wanted to hear, it may not resolve the current
issues, but it is feedback just the same.
First and foremost I must agree with Locutus In as
much as, even though we don't start out as a democracy, that doesn't mean we can't decide in a democratic forum on decisions that will guide the future of our sovereign nation, after all thats what democracy is all about.
As to the physical reality of our situation starting out as a tyranny is purely a historical reality as far as ancient cultures are concerned. Most ancient tribes were tyrannies to begin with because rulership was not decided by general concensus, but by who in the tribe was strongest or the best provider of the tribes needs for survival, therefore I must also agree that whatever form of government we take should start out small and should add cabinet positions as dictated by both technilogical advances, and environmental circumstances, or to put that in laymans terms what we know and how the neighbors feel about that. What titles we bestow upon these individuals initially, IMHO, are really inconsiquential as with the passing of time and changes in the forms of government these titles would for the most part inevitably change to more accurately reflect both the times and current form of government.
As to laws, well, if we're going on the premise of law as it applies to us the governing body and represented citizenship that may be on hand at any given time, and surmising that said laws would dictate a code of conduct that governing officials would be obliged to adhere to in order to keep power in check, then yes I feel they are absolutly necessary, if for nothing else, then as a system of checks and balances to help regulate said power and responsibilities, and to insure no one individual would accumulate too much of either.
Now if we're talking law as in a global body or more accurately international law, then I hardly feel they're necessary as you cannot accurately predict what actions the AI controlled governments will take, nor are your citizens whether it be Military units, Civil Servants, or Civilians capable of taking any actions without your Knowledge. The only case in which I see this coming to pass (and this does open up a host of interesting possibilities) is if your playing in a mutiplayer game with more than one government represented by a governing body such as the one we're suggesting.

could that be future prospects I see on the horizon, time will tell!

Pedrunn · October 31, 2002, 07:14

Quote:

Originally posted by RunsWithDwarf
it may not be exactly what you wanted to hear, it may not resolve the current issues, but it is feedback just the same.

This is a democracy game, isnt?

Quote:

Originally posted by RunsWithDwarf
First and foremost I must agree with Locutus In as
much as, even though we don't start out as a democracy, that doesn't mean we can't decide in a democratic forum on decisions that will guide the future of our sovereign nation, after all thats what democracy is all about.

Agreed

Otherwise we should name this forum "Tiranny Game"!

Quote:

Originally posted by RunsWithDwarf
As to laws, well, if we're going on the premise of law as it applies to us the governing body and represented citizenship that may be on hand at any given time, and surmising that said laws would dictate a code of conduct that governing officials would be obliged to adhere to in order to keep power in check, then yes I feel they are absolutly necessary, if for nothing else, then as a system of checks and balances to help regulate said power and responsibilities, and to insure no one individual would accumulate too much of either.

Actually as you may know from your reading. I was against the laws but took back waht i said. And i do know now that rules are essential (I am even part of the making of the constitution). But as i see the constitution does control the power but this is secondary it rather give the citzens the power to do so. Still the main reason is not that. Is to create the rules to the game so that it can be possible to play until the end.

Quote:

Originally posted by RunsWithDwarf
Now if we're talking law as in a global body or more accurately international law, then I hardly feel they're necessary as you cannot accurately predict what actions the AI controlled governments will take,

Not to mention they are a game ruiner

Lets create Kill-UN party.

Quote:

Originally posted by RunsWithDwarf The only case in which I see this coming to pass (and this does open up a host of interesting possibilities) is if your playing in a mutiplayer game with more than one government represented by a governing body such as the one we're suggesting.

could that be future prospects I see on the horizon, time will tell!

CTP2 DG MP would ideed be very fun. Although i see some stuff will be hard to deal.

Lets stick to SP.

RunsWithDwarf · October 31, 2002, 07:45

A few Observations!
On the issue of initial elected officials I personnelly feel there should be some rank and file or a pecking order so to speak in order to better accomodate some of the situations that may arise such as impeachment, or assassination. I went into more detail on this in Pedrunn's thread regarding the constitution but only because I saw a question posed by Locutus on what to do in the event of an impeachment, It may not be an issue early on, but later in the game may become a necessity.
As to powers and who wields them, historically the President is the Supreme Commander in Chief of all the Armed Forces during a time of war and is therefore ultimatly responsible for making the tough decisions that arise as a direct result of the position he holds, he is supposed to represent the predominate moral values of the nation he serves, and thereby makes no decision lightly where it concerns matters of national interest and domestic policy, and on the issue of the economy the president does have some say (sorry to have to disagree with you on this Locutus) although his decisions must be approved by congress through a majority vote, and ideally should have the best interest of the people he was elected to serve at heart. Personnel interest of the president should be kept on just that level personnel, and should never play a part in politics or policy making while serving the public in that capacity as it represents a conflict of interests. (Yeah! I know that ain't the case with the current administration, I did say "Ideally" didn't I). It is for this very reason the President keeps a cabinet of top advisors and administrators on hand to keep him appraised on current issues that affect the nation on a daily basis. He is given a detailed briefing everyday on the current state of affairs in order to keep on top of said issues, and although he gets a lot of suggestions on how to proceed, the ultimate decision is left up to him.
This then brings up the Vice-President who not only replaces the president during times of a national crises such as impeachment, or assassination but also acts in the capacity of an Ambassadore of goodwill to foreign dignitaries and world leaders, he deals with domestic affairs when the president is otherwise unavailable (sick, on tour, campaigning, or any of the other inumerable reasons the president has for not being in the white house), and as he sits in on the daily briefings of the president each day a lot of the more mundane issues are dealt with by him on a daily basis, in a lot of ways he is even busier than the President although he receives very little recognition for the job he performs. Such is the life of a civil servant.
Congress traditionally served government in a dual capacity as both duly elected representatives of the peoples of their individual states, and as a check to the powers of the president, this being the reason they we're given the power to declare war, and not the president. Now, although they have always had some say in foreign affairs as far as those that affect the U.S., it had never been as pronounced as it has since FDR was in office, and unfortunatly the more perceived responsibilities they take on the less they seem to be able to accomplish (I still don't think they've come to an agreement on a budget proposal since Reagan was in office, and I find it amazing that a group that can't seem to agree on anything and that spends so much time debating every little trivial detail actually found time to spend all our hard earned tax dollars. Eh! Excuse me I'm ranting).
I still have a few more things to say on the issues brought up here but it will have to wait until I've had some sleep! Bye..

HuangShang · October 31, 2002, 20:42

....................can someone break that down for
(i mean everything up until now)

J Bytheway · November 1, 2002, 13:29

We should be very wary of considering "democracy" equivalent with "American democracy", or any other country's in particular. There's no particular reason to follow any particular form. For example, the US President more or less has to have supreme command of the army, because he was the only one elected by the citizens, on behalf of whom the decisions are made. For us, all the ministers are elected independantly, so it makes sense to segregate these two duties.

RunsWithDwarf · November 2, 2002, 08:06

Point well taken

, J I stand corrected in my oversight.

RunsWithDwarf · November 2, 2002, 20:29

Oh! by the way J, Doesn't your Parliment of elected ministers, pretty much serve the same function as our elected congress, as somewhat of a check to your Prime Minister's powers and authority?

J Bytheway · November 2, 2002, 20:49

Well, I'm not really that knowledgable about it, but the Prime Minister doesn't really have that much power, I don't think - except in times of emergency he can't really do anything significant without it being passed through the Parliment, so in that sense I think you're right. Although he can bring pressure to bear on the members of his party to vote theway he wants (three line whip and such like...).

If you have cable (here, at least) you can watch British politics in action on the parliment channel (or something like that). Apparently seeing how democracy actually works in the UK in practice has surprised (and even scared) many people at home and abroad

.

Frozzy · November 2, 2002, 20:57

I'm all for using the Westminster system in our DG. I think we need a few less ministers than even now

The other, elected ministers could be lowly members of the parliament, putting views across. This would work for propaganda around election time, and campaigns would be more exciting.

FYI, AFAIK the Westminster System is used in most Commonwealth coutries (inc. NZ, UK, excl. Aus), and the PM chooses ministers for the cabinet from the assembly

RunsWithDwarf · November 2, 2002, 23:11

J, I think that it was originally intended to work very similar to that method here, although somewhere along the way the the mighty dollar gained more sway in congress than the will of the people.
At least in your Parliment it sounds like things get done, albeit scary as that may be.
The biggest fear of our congress I,m afraid is that someone will miss out on their fair share of the pie, whilst they're sticking it to the people.
By the way, I think I've seen the channel your talking about, rather stuffy, long winded gentlemen, in close quarters as I recall. Well, at least they let them finish speaking there. Here they're given time limits to make their point, which as I think about it again isn't neccessarily a bad thing..

So! with all things considered, perhaps the Westminster system redbull mentioned (or a close facimile) would be a better choice.
Just as long as I don't have to say "God save the Queen" that is. I'd much rather hope he would devote more time to me.

Frozzy · November 2, 2002, 23:28

Ahem! God Save the Lemur

How will bills be put across? If we are using the Westminster System, I believe we need a majority accross to the public, then through the assembly, and finally to the President. If the bill is rejected at any stage, it is dumped.

We need three votes to safeguard any "dumb" bills don't go through. Like, for instance, the people want a huge Rugby Park in the capital (true Kiwi speaking here

), but it's not finacially feasible, then thats where the Pres or the Assembly step in.

H Tower · November 7, 2002, 00:45

I don't know about everyone else not wanting to run for a government position, but I know I feel a strong desire to run, even though I don't even own the game. I want to participate as a judge since you don't need to know a single thing about the game to do it. I've also seen the bad things that can happen in a game without having a judicial branch, Take a look at the recent presidential election in the civ2 game to see what i mean.

Pedrunn · November 7, 2002, 06:43

Here the most clear suggestions for the government positions:

Locutus

President/Grand Apolyton
- The only person who actually physically plays the game
- Distributes the savegames to whoever needs them (government officials, maybe others - TBD)
- Organizes turnchats and communiticates with the members in other ways
- In charge of in-game 'government affairs' (government type, location of the capital)
- Naming of cities
- Has the decisive vote in case no decision can be reached on certain issues (maybe a right to veto certain decisions?)

Minister of Domestic Affairs
- Responsible for City Management
- Responsible for Infrastructure (PW)
- Sets Domestic Policies (Worday, Rations, Science, etc)
- Controls the Imperial Expansion agenda (where to found new cities, what to do with conquered cities)

Minister of Science, Trade and Diplomacy
- Determines what advances to research
- Conducts diplomacy with other Empires
- Responsible for all (national and international) Emperial Trade
- Since this seems to me a rather 'lightweight' function, could serve as Vice-President as well (i.e. helps President wherever needed, replaces him in case of absence)

Supreme Commander
- In charge of Army, Navy and Airforce (as well as all unconvential units)

Lemmy 1

Minister of Infrastructure:
Controls what happens to the PW pool, has to mediate between other ministers

Minister of Internal Affairs:
Control the the empire settings: ration, production, wages.
Set's the science goals.
Can take over other minister's job if there isn't much to do,

Minister of Production:
Controls what is being built in the cities

Minister of Defense
Control the units

Minister of Exploration:
One of the positions that is very usefull early on, controls all the exploring units (released for exploring by the MoD), this could be done by the MoD, but it could become too much if there is a war going on, and there is still some exploring to do.

Lemmy 2

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)

Pedrunn

President
- The only person who actually physically plays the game
- Distributes the savegames to whoever needs them (government officials, maybe others - TBD)
- Organizes turnchats and communiticates with the members in other ways
- In charge of in-game 'government affairs' (government type, location of the capital)
- Naming of cities
- Has the decisive vote in case no decision can be reached on certain issues (maybe a right to veto certain decisions?)

Minister of Micromanagement (or whatever you want to call)
- In charge of City Building
- In charge of City Specialist

Minister of Macromanagement (or whatever you want to call)
- In Charge of Terraforming/Infrastructure
- In Charge of empire tabs
- In Charge of Science
- In Charge of the settlers (??? TBD)

Minister of Foreign Relations
- Conducts diplomacy with other Empires
- Responsible for all (national and international) Emperial Trade
- In charge of diplomatic units.

Minister of Defense
- In charge of Army, Navy and Airforce
- In charge of unconvential units except settler and diplomatic units

RunsWithDwarf

President
- The only person who actually physically plays the game
- Distributes the savegames to whoever needs them (government officials, maybe others - TBD)
- Organizes turnchats and communiticates with the members in other ways
- In charge of in-game 'government affairs' (government type, location of the capital)
- Choose ministers from the Parliament
- The minister are subordinat to the President

Parliament
-Group of people chosen by the people from which the President will choose the ministers he wants (Like US democracy).

Someone i couldnt find but remember this post

President
- The only person who actually physically plays the game
- Distributes the savegames to whoever needs them (government officials, maybe others - TBD)
- Organizes turnchats and communiticates with the members in other ways
- In charge of in-game 'government affairs' (government type, location of the capital)
- Choose ministers from the CTP2DG Community.
- The minister are subordinat to the President.

Note: The supreme Commander now is calle Minister of Defense even by Locutus. The names are temporary and maybe old. So do not think about the names is still to be determinned but the division of work.

Note2: A lot of other stuff was suggested in this thread but only the actual suggestions were added.

Gilgamensch · November 7, 2002, 06:58

Maybe we should start threats and afterwards polls for each 'job'.

Trying to clarify how WE want to have those jobs be done, or what they should include.

Expect the supreme commander, we seem not to able to agree on anything

, we are like the old greeks and scotts

H Tower · November 14, 2002, 00:31

picking and choosing from pedrunn's post of what everyone thought, here's what i would like to see:

I like Locutus' ideas on the presidency, EXCEPT for the part about naming the cities, I think the city planner should do that as well.

The minister of domestic affairs from locutus' ideas, except adding the responsibilty of taking city names from the people and reccommending a list to the president.

I support locutus' structure of the Supreme Commander (defense minister?) and the Science, Trade, Foreign Affairs officer.

SO:

President/Grand Apolyton
- The only person who actually physically plays the game
- Distributes the savegames to whoever needs them (government officials, maybe others - TBD)
- Organizes turnchats and communiticates with the members in other ways
- In charge of in-game 'government affairs' (government type, location of the capital)
- Has the decisive vote in case no decision can be reached on certain issues (maybe a right to veto certain decisions?)

Minister of Domestic Affairs
- Responsible for City Management
- Responsible for Infrastructure (PW)
- Sets Domestic Policies (Worday, Rations, Science, etc)
- Controls the Imperial Expansion agenda (where to found new cities, what to do with conquered cities)
- Naming of cities

Minister of Science, Trade and Diplomacy
- Determines what advances to research
- Conducts diplomacy with other Empires
- Responsible for all (national and international) Emperial Trade
- Since this seems to me a rather 'lightweight' function, could serve as Vice-President as well (i.e. helps President wherever needed, replaces him in case of absence)

Supreme Commander
- In charge of Army, Navy and Airforce (as well as all unconvential units)

Frozzy · November 14, 2002, 00:44

So... (So long as HTower's proposal is passed) we have...

7 Government Positions (inc. Judges)

H Tower · November 14, 2002, 01:01

seven does seem like a lot, but i don't know how we could cut it down more, the fact that their are 3 judges is hard to get around. the good thing is that judges do not have to own the game, so lots people, (me for instance) who do not won the game but are interested in the roleplyaing side of a democracy can participate. Their used to be quite a few people here from the AC demo game that expressed interest in the game, maybe they'll come back and be judges when the game starts

Lemmy · November 14, 2002, 04:46

Unless we're also using governers, then i think the Minister of Domestic Affairs position has a to high workload, basically the 2 most heavy jobs are under the MoDA, that is city production and PW.

J Bytheway · November 14, 2002, 04:53

I think H Tower's proposal is good to start with, so long as we have provision for dividing up the jobs later.

Lemmy · November 14, 2002, 05:20

Time for a poll maybe, here's my final suggestion (unless i've left something out):

President
- Empire settings, sliders, government type, sci-rate, pw-rate (little work)
- Running the game (lot of work?)
- Diplomacy

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

Minister of Domestic Affairs
- City build orders (lot of work)
- City Management, specialists (avg work)
- Science (little work)
- City placement/naming, settlers

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

In my experience there are three "big" jobs, those are city build order, PW/terraforming, and military/unit control.
To merge even two of those jobs is very unbalancing, even if it does make sense sometimes.
I put diplomacy under the president for now, later on a new position can be created (when we also have more players) to handle trade and diplomacy.
As for a vice president, i'd say let the president appoint one of the ministers as VP himself.

Now that i look at it, it is a lot like Pedrunn's suggestion, except for the Foreign Affairs minister, who can be created later in the game, when we have lot of caravans and met some other countries.

Gilgamensch · November 14, 2002, 05:50

Looks OK for me, just don't put anything about selecting a delegate in, I guess this we have to discuss seperatly.......

Who should decide about the national settings? (sliders/F1)

In other words who will control how much we work and drink

Lemmy · November 14, 2002, 05:55

That goes under Empire Settings, so the president controls that...

i'll edit my post..

Gilgamensch · November 14, 2002, 06:00

Thank you Lemmy.

the only thing, should we already start a poll?

Lemmy · November 14, 2002, 06:16

maybe wait one more day, for suggestion/remarks, let others post their final suggestion/