The nature of this democracy game -- discussion thread

Flubber · June 13, 2003, 11:34

There are a number of polls about voting powers, googlies powers and rulemaking. All of them fundamentally come back to a question as to the nature of how this game will be played. Is it:

1. a democracy style PBEM where the game will be won and lost on Chiron through the normal in-game mechanics and diplomacy -- any voting and "rule-making" out here are just in fun and are limited as anything that impacts game fairness is unenforceable

2. A democracy PBEM which will be mainly determined by the in game mechanics and diplomacy but which can be impacted by some fun roleplaying out here in the general forum. For example, if the Chiron equivalent of the Kyoto accord were passed, each faction would be required to reduce their ecodamage. Everything would be of general application and if it hurts one faction more than another, thats just a reality of decisions by world bodies

3. A democracy Pbem where the will of the majority rules in ALL matters and the in-computer part of the game could be majorly and severely impacted by majority decisions in this forum. The power of the majority is absolute and they have no obligation to be fair to anyone ; If the majority decides that a faction must self-destruct a base or even a bunch of bases, they must do so, even if all the members of that faction are opposed.

Note that I have purposely chosen an extreme example #3 as I want to get a sense of how far the right of the majority to decide things actually goes in most people's mind. The example could be less severe . . . i.e. could the majority decide that the UNI only must pay a 10 ec fine to each other faction for some infraction? I suspect that the vast majority out there are saying " silly Flubber . . . of course the majority can't impose anything that impacts actual gameplay"

I suspect that's the case because accepting a googlie veto on majority decisions seems to be winning. But other than that indication, many posts on the subject have stressed the rights of majority rule in determining how this game procedes and have never mentioned any limits on that majority right. I'm sure that most people would say that limitations were " implicit" or " understood" but I just want to be sure people are thinking the same way.

I didn't post a poll since I just want to see how others view the game. I mentioned three possible conceptions of how the game works but feel free to write a different (likely better ) description.

Oh and example one is how I see the game. The underlying Smax PBEM will be a played fairly . Decisions out here can be made but nobody has to do anything that impacts on game balance. Like the UNited nations, theis general forum is powerless to force any sovereign nation to do anything.

How do you see the game? Sorry to harp on this but I have never played a demo game before and I believe many others have never played a PBEM .

Maniac · June 13, 2003, 12:54

One of course. We could of course sign a Kyoto agreement, but the only way to ensure an unwilling faction follows it is by attacking them in-game and make them do it.

Static Universe · June 13, 2003, 15:29

I agree with #1. The forum should reflect the actual game and not the other way around.

Cedayon · June 13, 2003, 15:32

#1, of course.

Snowflake · June 13, 2003, 16:00

Ditto

Voltaire · June 13, 2003, 16:16

#1, #2 is unenforceable since faction could very well choose to not ratify any planetary "Kyoto Protocol".

Frankychan · June 13, 2003, 17:15

Agreement over here.

Hercules · June 13, 2003, 17:56

#1 of course . But also think about the mid game as diplomacy gets going and when decisions taken in the general forum could be enforced by factions declaring Vendetta,(in extreme situations) out of nowhere other than from a Demo game decision/poll. There could be decisions taken to not share tech with stray factions, yet that would not be against the game process.

What I am saying is, some decisions and sanctions are enforceable as part of the diplomacy game and the options would be much wider in scope than is contained within the usual SP Diplomacy channels.

Corellion · June 13, 2003, 18:36

I choose number two, because any such "Kyoto Accord" would not be enforcable without actual in-game threats. If anybody should choose to not comply, it's up to the others to decide what to do with them.

The only thing that full majority should affect absolutely would be matters of the game mechanics, out-of-character stuff.

Main_Brain · June 13, 2003, 18:45

The Human Nature is a Struggle between Good and Evil.
That having be said: #2

Mr. President · June 13, 2003, 20:09

Number one sounds most fun. Do it!

Nubclear · June 14, 2003, 00:03

#1, though I do think that if we do make a rule....each faction should adhere to it lest something terrible happen to its leader

Jamski · June 14, 2003, 06:29

#2 would be more fun, of course if a team chose not to follow an agreement, the only solution would be Vendetta

Once the teams all meet in game, I'm sure we can start to have some great polls and diplomacy here in the main forum...

-Jam

MRT144 · June 14, 2003, 12:13

jamski, youre setting up the hive for more enemies than youll be able ot handle

Rokossovky · June 14, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

jamski, youre setting up the hive for more enemies than youll be able ot handle

It's unfortunate that you interpret Jamski's words that way. We in the hive are looking forward to many glorious alliances with nations such as yourself.

- Rokossovky

(oh, and #1)

Mongoose · June 14, 2003, 12:32

I presume that after the Hive is eradicated, its members will no longer be eligible to vote in the polls here.

MRT144 · June 14, 2003, 13:46

rokossovky...i dont speak for my faction, but i can see you starting to alienate everyone on planet...

Jamski · June 14, 2003, 14:56

Quote:

jamski, youre setting up the hive for more enemies than youll be able ot handle

I'm speaking MY opinion, not the HIVE'S opinion. The Hive doesn't have a group opinion on these issues ATM, and you are the only one saying so. Stop trying to make trouble please.

-Jam

Jamski · June 14, 2003, 15:02

Look, I said #2, Rokossovky said #1. Point made - now drop it, Mongoose.

Oh, and an apology to HongHu is probably in order... but *shrugs* not my business.

-Jam

Mongoose · June 14, 2003, 19:52

I don't think I will drop it, thank you. So long as you continue to excercise your democratic right to poll on the inane, I shall excercise mine to draw attention to that fact by comments as ascerbic as I can manage.

As to the issue at hand, do you support the position that a player's right to vote in polls survives the demise of that player's faction? I should think not!

There will be redress on the battlefield for political decisions taken that displease...as there always has been.

Fair warning given.

MRT144 · June 14, 2003, 20:11

jamski, the fact that that your fellow hive members havent come out and told you to knock it off makes me believe they support your actions.

how about this...you dont make any more polls for the next 50 turns and i wont ride your ass on it?

Jamski · June 14, 2003, 20:13

/me laughs out loud and wonders why Mongoose joined a democracy game if he's going to complain about the democracy part of it *

-Jam

Jamski · June 14, 2003, 20:19

Quote:

jamski, the fact that that your fellow hive members havent come out and told you to knock it off makes me believe they support your actions.

how about this...you dont make any more polls for the next 50 turns and i wont ride your ass on it?

This is killing me

Why in the name of GooglieGod would my team-mates tell me not to make polls? If you must know... the idea for these latest polls came from a member of the CyCon. Look also at what the other Hive members posting in this thread have written. The opinions are divided. Look Mongoose, I realise you're making a point in a humourous way (and trying to wind me up a bit too?

) but in the meal of a democracy game, polls are the starter, spam is the main course and polls again for dessert. That's the tasty meal we all love to eat

I tell you what, I won't make anymore polls today - that's reasonable

-Jam

Static Universe · June 14, 2003, 21:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
jamski, the fact that that your fellow hive members havent come out and told you to knock it off makes me believe they support your actions.

how about this...you dont make any more polls for the next 50 turns and i wont ride your ass on it?

It's pretty obvious to everyone that Mongoose and buster are pretty much playing the turns for the Drones alone. Why don't you stop hiding behind them and sneaking out to occasionally pitch your little fits?

And for the Drones to complain about being a minority is just bull****. They were allowed into the game in the first place under the idea that they would be small faction, just a few select members as a training exercise. Now they want to force everyone down the "one faction, one vote" road for every proposal, some of which deal with things completely out of game play.

The reality of the Drones is that it is being played with an absolute minimum of interation with it's members, while the other factions are into the roleplay aspects both within the private forums and the main forums. If they wanted to play a PBEM with no interaction, then they should have joined a PBEM game and instant messaged their plans.

And there is no "Hive" position on meta-game issues, nor will there ever be.

Jamski · June 14, 2003, 21:28

There IS a Hive position on meta-game issues, and that's that we don't have a factional position.

-Jam

MRT144 · June 14, 2003, 21:40

ok static, whatever you want to believe...just confirming what i thought about the hive

Mongoose · June 14, 2003, 22:55

SU, that's a load of stinky manure, pal. I would accuse you of snooping in our discussions, but the fact that you are so far off the truth of the matter proves your innocence.

Cedayon · June 14, 2003, 23:04

/me watches as the tension-o-meter slowly, or not so slowly, approaches the "mass nervestapling" zone.

Mr. President · June 15, 2003, 01:42

Quote:

And for the Drones to complain about being a minority is just bull****.

For anyone to complain about being a minority is stupid. Just play better than the other teams.

johndmuller · June 15, 2003, 02:47

#2 is the way I expect the game to be played - at least insofar as it means: "If your faction is friendy and helpful to my faction, cool - if not, Walk the Plank (of course, we had voted to make your faction walk the plank unless you were nice and helpful - Oh, you missed that poll, too bad)."

OTOH, in the variation where it means that we all agree in advance (and follow through) to adhere to the results of any referendums, that might be interesting too, but Fat Chance of that happening.