Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
SpeckofStardust said:
That here is no way to fix the problem thus the damage will be far greater because it will be a constant well known problem?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"No way to fix" was about gerrymandering. Which, as a problem we still struggle with today, is unlikely to be fixable.

What we want to fix is the antidemocratic impact of oligarchic rule. Which is obviously 'fixable' at our tech level, since not all governments are oligarchies.
 
pblur said:
"No way to fix" was about gerrymandering. Which, as a problem we still struggle with today, is unlikely to be fixable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's unlikely to be fixable because it's hard to ram through an anti-gerrymandering bill.

pblur said:
What we want to fix is the antidemocratic impact of oligarchic rule. Which is obviously 'fixable' at our tech level, since not all governments are oligarchies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I prefer a meritocratic form of government. Oligarchy doesn't bother me except that it limits social mobility.
 
Abby Normal said:
Speaking of support subordinate, is it supposed to only give 1 econ slot back on the main version?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No.

veekie said:
-Current people in charge will set up the districts. They will naturally set up the districts in their favor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

They're going to make the initial mistake of just drawing them around current simple borders and call it a day for the most part.

veekie said:
-Districts will need to be reassessed regularly to maintain fairness. This requires substantial administrative overhead, and each time will generate opportunities for abuse. This will be a long term problem.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly, this is another thing they're going to screw up by not assessing frequently enough. At least not before you have a proper census running.

NotAlwaysFanfic said:
Out of curiosity, @Academia Nut, when you mentioned players being paranoid about what you thought were obvious best choices, was sacrificing our Dilpo King way back when one of those cases?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Basically it was so good because it hit so many of your traits that it got boosted from okay to awesome.
 
Kiba said:
I prefer a meritocratic form of government. Oligarchy doesn't bother me except that it limits social mobility.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I actually agree. And there's no government known to man without systemic dysfunctions. So I'm not disturbed by what government we have, but want to vote for choices which allow us to limit their impact.
 
[X][Clan] Roll back, institute geographic administration within Valleyhome (Possibility of stability loss)
[X][Main] Great Temple
[X][Secondary] Enforce Justice
[X][Secondary] Build Vineyard
[X][CA] Xohyssiri
 
Okay, here's the problem. Even if Geographical works out exactly the way the voters think it will (hahaha), that still means that it will have locked us into near constant Stab loss as we have to fight corruption at every turn. I find it much more likely that this is just the slower way to landed nobility as we will eventually have a turn that we can't fight the corruption due to Stab loss and will have whoever happens to currently be in power shoved down our throat long term. Seriously, almost every time a crisis our people have gone "Nobles? Hereditary? Class? Land? Nobles?"
 
One of the core issues with guilds is that artisnal skill above a certain threshold is basically irrelevant to administratrion. And artisnal experts are not inclined to REALIZE that, or be able to accurately assess admin skill independantly.

Essentially even though it looks meritocratic, it's on the wrong merits for the job.
 
Last edited:
Hangwind said:
Okay, here's the problem. Even if Geographical works out exactly the way the voters think it will (hahaha), that still means that it will have locked us into near constant Stab loss as we have to fight corruption at every turn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, none of us think that's how it will work out.

Hope that strawman was satisfying to knock down though! :p
 
It seems that nobody care about the new king that MW installed after they kicked out the old one.

I have to admit that I am tempted to start a new trading post so we exert a more powerful influence, but at the same time, it seems easier to start influencing the Hathatyn.
 
Hangwind said:
Okay, here's the problem. Even if Geographical works out exactly the way the voters think it will (hahaha), that still means that it will have locked us into near constant Stab loss as we have to fight corruption at every turn. I find it much more likely that this is just the slower way to landed nobility as we will eventually have a turn that we can't fight the corruption due to Stab loss and will have whoever happens to currently be in power shoved down our throat long term. Seriously, almost every time a crisis our people have gone "Nobles? Hereditary? Class? Land? Nobles?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
>Implying the Occupational option won't have corruption every turn as well

Puh-lease

Don't try to imply that your side has no problems.

We can't solve problems if we don't see them. Occupational will hide those problems and stratify the groups even more.
 
Academia Nut said:
Basically it was so good because it hit so many of your traits that it got boosted from okay to awesome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh. Look. Another time where I wanted to take an opportunity and was shouted down.

How...surprising.
pblur said:
Actually, none of us think that's how it will work out.

Hope that strawman was satisfying to knock down though! :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So how exactly are you seeing this work out? Because the only reasoning I've seen for taking the explicitly worse option is that "our people will see corruption more clearly" and fight against it. Which means even more crises! YAY!
 
Sivantic said:
>Implying the Occupational option won't have corruption every turn as well
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
>Ignoring WOG that this is the more unfair option

No problems? No. Less problems than yours? OH YEAH.

Look. Picking a form of government is like choosing a car. Yes, all of them are going to develop mechanical problems. Yes, they're all going to have to be scrapped eventually.

But you'll still get farther if you don't choose the one that's already on fire!
Adhoc vote count started by Hangwind on May 30, 2017 at 11:20 PM, finished with 43668 posts and 52 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
First, I wasn't around to vote on the thing that caused this particular mess so I'm not actually responsible for it... behold the power of coincidence!
Hangwind said:
Okay, here's the problem. Even if Geographical works out exactly the way the voters think it will (hahaha), that still means that it will have locked us into near constant Stab loss as we have to fight corruption at every turn. I find it much more likely that this is just the slower way to landed nobility as we will eventually have a turn that we can't fight the corruption due to Stab loss and will have whoever happens to currently be in power shoved down our throat long term. Seriously, almost every time a crisis our people have gone "Nobles? Hereditary? Class? Land? Nobles?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think geographically will end up needing constantly needing tweaking. That is how the problems get fixed. All solutions are going to cause major issues... its just that geographical will end up screwing things up the most obviously. Thus can be addressed.

What I do know is that guilds with screw things up quietly to the point it actively eats resources and stifles advancement while raising costs. Sure you delay the visible mess... however it just means once it goes bad its insanely hard to remove... if you even can. The only reason the US got rid of the trade guilds was that WW2 sucked so much manpower out of the system that the system fell apart from lack of members. This caused the Do-It-Yourself movement.
 
Kiba said:
It seems that nobody care about the new king that MW installed after they kicked out the old one.

I have to admit that I am tempted to start a new trading post so we exert a more powerful influence, but at the same time, it seems easier to start influencing the Hathatyn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Some people might've forgotten about it, some people might've not connected the dots, some might actually not care, and the rest are focusing on our current problems.

The trading post would be nice, but it's not a high priority right now. Maybe in the next few turns once we handle our internal issues.
 
Hangwind said:
>Ignoring WOG that this is the more unfair option

No problems? No. Less problems than yours? OH YEAH.

Look. Picking a form of government is like choosing a car. Yes, all of them are going to develop mechanical problems. Yes, they're all going to have to be scrapped eventually.

But you'll still get farther if you don't choose the one that's already on fire!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's more noticeably unfair to the population, which doesn't mean occupational isn't also just as bad (just that it's less noticeable that they're getting screwed over). Both options have their own issues, but geographic is easier to identify.

Fixing a problem is 1/2 finding the problem after all. Also, since the crime is very noticeable, Restoration of Order will be very effective at removing the people responsible.
 
Academia Nut said:
No.



They're going to make the initial mistake of just drawing them around current simple borders and call it a day for the most part.



Honestly, this is another thing they're going to screw up by not assessing frequently enough. At least not before you have a proper census running.



Basically it was so good because it hit so many of your traits that it got boosted from okay to awesome.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh great and mighty @Academia Nut I beg a question from thee.

If we went for geographical would we organize it such that each district has 1 vote, regardless of population inside said district? Or would we organize it such that each district has a X number of votes based on population?

Example for clarity:
under the districts get 1 vote, period, variation > District A and District B are the same geographical size, A has 2000 people and B has 1000 people, but they each have 1 vote.
under the districts get X votes based on population variation > District A and District B are the same geographical size, A has 2000 people and B has 1000 people, so A has 2 votes and B has 1.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top