I think that the players should hold office based on a lottery system where everyone playing has a fair shot in office. I feel this would be an interesting twist to the game and ensures everyone has a fair shot in the political system. A lottery system means that everyone is included. This could present a problem because it will include everyone, and not everyone would want to be in an office position. Maybe the lottery system could be formatted in a way that players who are genuinely interested in holding a political position are the only ones in the lottery pool.
Based on the four decrees, it can be discerned that individual autonomy is a very high priority in this world in which nothing is inheritable. As such, this hyper- merit based society ought to maintain a consistency with this value by supporting the policy that individuals in office are those who are most qualified--election based on the attributes of the players. The alternative options adhere less closely with this merit-based society by leaving room for subjectivity and persuasion (within an election based on competing platforms) or complete randomization (within a lottery).
I think it would be interesting if people were put into office based on a lottery. I only feel this way because i am curious to see what would happen. I have no deeper political motives or civil issues backing this decision i just think it would be interesting to see how this type of government would work out in a virtual world. This would obviously never work in the democratic society we live in today and based on this fact- my decision to support the lottery approach woulod alos mean that this virtual government would be far removed from the reality of today. I don't mind this though as i am really interested to see how a lottery system would work out.
I also agree that a lottery system would be very interesting, but highly unproductive and counter-intuitive when compared to the four decrees that this world is based on. If inheritance, marriage, private land rights cease to exist, that would imply that these values must be earned or obtained through individual basis. That being said, this emphasis on the power of the individual ought to lead to a logic that would support delegating power to those individuals who take the initiative--not through random delegation.
I agree with you that it would be interesting to see how the lottery system worked out but I don't think it would work out. Like any other game there are going to be people who play more than others and so those who want to spend more time on the game should have the opportunity to hold office. If the lottery system was used it could pick someone who hardly ever logs on or someone who doesn’t want to hold office. I think it would be fair to put people in office based on their advancement in the game.
players who log on frequently, participate in the activities, and try to succeed should be the ones to hold office. if the game was random and positions were selected at lottery, then it would not be realistic. from my point of view, the game is supposed to reflect today's system of government and lifestyle.
also, term should be limited, as they are usually in the country now. that way, players who do not have much experience in the game can gain the information they need to climb the ranks and win positions.
I agree with aimeel. I think that players who are active and participate in Agora Xchange should be the ones that hold office. Just like in our world, those who take interest in making it better by contributing ideas and taking action are leaders, I think the participants who show their leadership through participation will excel as officers. I think that a group of officers or party should be in charge instead of a sole leader. The idea of democracy and majority vote should be implemented to the group as well. I think this idea of working collectively to run the society will be more beneficial. It will bring people of different backgrounds, interests, and opinions into a common space. I also agree that the terms should be limited and people should be able to resign and re-elected.
This sounds like it would be a good strategy. Someone who plays the game frequently would have a much better understanding of how the game works than someone who logs on periodically. This would create a positive reflection of real world government. I agree that terms should be limited. Also, leaders should be able to resign. What about the idea of having multiple leaders? Like a cabinet instead of one executive ruler. That way players who are ruling can collaborate with one another to determine what would be best for their society. I think 4-6 rulers would be good. People who play the game often and are willing to assume a leadership position.
Selecting members to political office at random will have several benefits:
1) This will hold especially true if terms are limited and relatively short. Those who are selected to office will be compelled to pass legislation that benefits no specific portion of society at the disadvantage of another. With the imminent danger of someone else being selected at random, the legislators will be less likely to erect laws that serve to hurt a group in that society because it is just as likely that someone from the opposition will be selected to government and seek retaliation against them.
2) Many individuals who seek office are compelled to do so for specific rewards. By eliminating personal control over who can attain office, the selfish motives that propels people to office will be removed, and many of the corrupt policies that result from this type of motivation will be prevented.
3)There is often a specific route one must take in order to win office. Exact sets of skills, experiences, and career paths are often replicated over and over again by those who gain office (Basically A + B + C = Election to office). Because of this particular governments are extremely narrow. If members were selected at random, then the government actors would be far more diverse, each bringing a unique perspective and agenda, leading to policies that are better aimed at helping society as a whole rather than only serving the interest a specific and homogeneous group.
4) The sense of apathy felt towards politics will be greatly diminished. Often members of society are quick to abandon their participation in governance because they not only feel that they have no experience in the matter, but that those who are highly trained in the area will ensure that their own policies win out. If each citizen knows that they are just as likely to become part of the state as the next person, then they will be more motivated to be prepared, informed, and proactive about contemporary politics and issues, because they will have a very real chance to pursue their goals and ideologies.
Elections based on attributes is an interesting idea because users who want to one day be in political office can live their life for this purpose. I believe this may truly separate those who want a life as public servant and political leaders from those who are enamored with the glory of a political leader.
With everyone having so many differing opinions, we can bundle ideals into physical representations of a platform and person running under that. However, the platforms, if elected by the popular vote to be ineffective, should still have system in place that can address these discrepancies and have the platform evolve into what is most effective for the people.
I think that the players should hold office based on a lottery system where everyone playing has a fair shot in office. I feel this would be an interesting twist to the game and ensures everyone has a fair shot in the political system. A lottery system means that everyone is included. This could present a problem because it will include everyone, and not everyone would want to be in an office position. Maybe the lottery system could be formatted in a way that players who are genuinely interested in holding a political position are the only ones in the lottery pool.
Based on the four decrees, it can be discerned that individual autonomy is a very high priority in this world in which nothing is inheritable. As such, this hyper- merit based society ought to maintain a consistency with this value by supporting the policy that individuals in office are those who are most qualified--election based on the attributes of the players. The alternative options adhere less closely with this merit-based society by leaving room for subjectivity and persuasion (within an election based on competing platforms) or complete randomization (within a lottery).
I think it would be interesting if people were put into office based on a lottery. I only feel this way because i am curious to see what would happen. I have no deeper political motives or civil issues backing this decision i just think it would be interesting to see how this type of government would work out in a virtual world. This would obviously never work in the democratic society we live in today and based on this fact- my decision to support the lottery approach woulod alos mean that this virtual government would be far removed from the reality of today. I don't mind this though as i am really interested to see how a lottery system would work out.
I also agree that a lottery system would be very interesting, but highly unproductive and counter-intuitive when compared to the four decrees that this world is based on. If inheritance, marriage, private land rights cease to exist, that would imply that these values must be earned or obtained through individual basis. That being said, this emphasis on the power of the individual ought to lead to a logic that would support delegating power to those individuals who take the initiative--not through random delegation.
I agree with you that it would be interesting to see how the lottery system worked out but I don't think it would work out. Like any other game there are going to be people who play more than others and so those who want to spend more time on the game should have the opportunity to hold office. If the lottery system was used it could pick someone who hardly ever logs on or someone who doesn’t want to hold office. I think it would be fair to put people in office based on their advancement in the game.
players who log on frequently, participate in the activities, and try to succeed should be the ones to hold office. if the game was random and positions were selected at lottery, then it would not be realistic. from my point of view, the game is supposed to reflect today's system of government and lifestyle.
also, term should be limited, as they are usually in the country now. that way, players who do not have much experience in the game can gain the information they need to climb the ranks and win positions.
I agree with aimeel. I think that players who are active and participate in Agora Xchange should be the ones that hold office. Just like in our world, those who take interest in making it better by contributing ideas and taking action are leaders, I think the participants who show their leadership through participation will excel as officers. I think that a group of officers or party should be in charge instead of a sole leader. The idea of democracy and majority vote should be implemented to the group as well. I think this idea of working collectively to run the society will be more beneficial. It will bring people of different backgrounds, interests, and opinions into a common space. I also agree that the terms should be limited and people should be able to resign and re-elected.
This sounds like it would be a good strategy. Someone who plays the game frequently would have a much better understanding of how the game works than someone who logs on periodically. This would create a positive reflection of real world government. I agree that terms should be limited. Also, leaders should be able to resign. What about the idea of having multiple leaders? Like a cabinet instead of one executive ruler. That way players who are ruling can collaborate with one another to determine what would be best for their society. I think 4-6 rulers would be good. People who play the game often and are willing to assume a leadership position.
Selecting members to political office at random will have several benefits:
1) This will hold especially true if terms are limited and relatively short. Those who are selected to office will be compelled to pass legislation that benefits no specific portion of society at the disadvantage of another. With the imminent danger of someone else being selected at random, the legislators will be less likely to erect laws that serve to hurt a group in that society because it is just as likely that someone from the opposition will be selected to government and seek retaliation against them.
2) Many individuals who seek office are compelled to do so for specific rewards. By eliminating personal control over who can attain office, the selfish motives that propels people to office will be removed, and many of the corrupt policies that result from this type of motivation will be prevented.
3)There is often a specific route one must take in order to win office. Exact sets of skills, experiences, and career paths are often replicated over and over again by those who gain office (Basically A + B + C = Election to office). Because of this particular governments are extremely narrow. If members were selected at random, then the government actors would be far more diverse, each bringing a unique perspective and agenda, leading to policies that are better aimed at helping society as a whole rather than only serving the interest a specific and homogeneous group.
4) The sense of apathy felt towards politics will be greatly diminished. Often members of society are quick to abandon their participation in governance because they not only feel that they have no experience in the matter, but that those who are highly trained in the area will ensure that their own policies win out. If each citizen knows that they are just as likely to become part of the state as the next person, then they will be more motivated to be prepared, informed, and proactive about contemporary politics and issues, because they will have a very real chance to pursue their goals and ideologies.
Elections based on attributes is an interesting idea because users who want to one day be in political office can live their life for this purpose. I believe this may truly separate those who want a life as public servant and political leaders from those who are enamored with the glory of a political leader.
With everyone having so many differing opinions, we can bundle ideals into physical representations of a platform and person running under that. However, the platforms, if elected by the popular vote to be ineffective, should still have system in place that can address these discrepancies and have the platform evolve into what is most effective for the people.
It was good enough for the Greeks!