Citizens (to be),

I stand before you to start discussions on a new government. My suggestion is to start a fresh demogame based on the fresh new Civ4. To that end, I would urge you all to:


have an open mind about how to organize ourselves
share your ideas, no matter how unusual they might seem
leave old disagreements behind, and enter this game on a basis of friendship and respect

Why did I have a feeling that I read your mind Dave ;).

This is a new game, both in Civ version and Demogame. We should start off on a good foot. I do wish to see a friendly atmosphere to be created in this game :).

I agree, also i think that somesort of constitutional convention take place. For example we elect 5 people to be founding fathers. They work together to write it, contintuely consulting with the people. In the end they will give it to us to ratify.

OK, where do we start? It's been awhile since I helped write a constitution...

...but starting fresh seems a bit, well, like reinventing the wheel. Why should we forget all the errors we made in the Civ III demogames? Do we really want history to repeat itself?

One way we can start fresh is to write a constitution that focuses on how demogame decisions are to be made - and then use that framework to decide how we're going to organize ourselves. There's no reason why we cannot write a demogame constitution now that will serve all future Civ IV demogames. I'm not suggesting we lock ourselves into one way of playing the demogame. I'm all for trying different things from demogame to demogame (or within a single demogame for that matter). I'm suggesting there is a basic framework common to all demogames and it is those common things that should form the constitution.

Off the top of my head some of these basics are: no unauthorized playing of the save, citizen 'rights' and responsibilities, a reaffirmation of forums rules, a very rough and flexible outline of government, how the constitution can be changed, and the role of lesser laws. I also think the relationship of mods to the demogame should be addressed.

Donsig is kinda on my wavelength. A lot of discussion during pregame for the last 4 or so Civ3 DG's has been spent on what the offices do, and it ends up being useless for the next DG. We need the Constitution to be the most basic rules. It needs to define only the most important aspects of the game. Ideally we should be able to use it for the entire life of Civ4 and when Civ5 comes out it should serve that environment just as well. Heck, maybe we'll do such a good job that it never needs to be amended. The one thing we must get right is allowing lower forms of law to define what the Constitution leaves unspecified. The less there is to contradict, the better, as long as when we start the actual game the lower structure is in place too.

I'm not suggesting we should forget our mistakes per se, just that in the spirit of this being a new game we should use our experiences in a positive way versus a negative way. What I don't want to see is arguments based on "we did blah blah blah in DGn and it was a disaster, so we can't do it in this game". I don't want to see endless debates about whether a certain arrangement of offices helped us or hurt us, or whether certain things we did were or were not compromises. I don't want to see the events of previous DGs used as weapons.

One thing we've got to keep in mind is that Civ4 is an entirely new game, so now may be the best (if not only) time to use the "evolution method" of lawmaking.

In other words, why don't we actually start as inarticluate caveman settlers and build our laws as we gain more knowledge of the game mechanics? Since many of us will be looking at a "brave new world" for the first time in years, this may our only chance to pursue such a concept.

Of course there would need to be basic guidelines to address mishandling of the save etc, but starting things this way would allow us to begin the game faster. :)

My approach would be to check out old constitutions and keep what's good, change what's bad and leave out what's unnecessary from my actual point of view and then make a proposal... Good idea or bad idea? How are the old constitutions? Sth. you should forget about or sth. you can work upon?
Furthermore I think less is more in this case... So basics in the constitution and fine-tuning in lower laws really make sense!

I've never really been involved in a Demogame I registered foir the last one but then had trouble getting online. Is there any where I can read the old constitutions? That way I can hopefully join in an informed discussion about the new one.

I only have two paragraphs for the constitution so far:

§1
The Democracy Game is a game we play to have fun, and all rules and actions should be made with the intent of making the most fun for all participants.

§2
Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
These rules may not contradict the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

Those I think will be the most important ones.

I think DZ's idea is great!

I've never really been involved in a Demogame I registered foir the last one but then had trouble getting online. Is there any where I can read the old constitutions? That way I can hopefully join in an informed discussion about the new one.

The current one is in the Civ III demogame forum and the rest are in the archives. Here's a link to the best one we had in my opinion:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=51315

Cheetah, that's an excellent start. I suggest we flesh out paragraph 2 regarding exactly what it would take to pass an amendment. Instead of *No rule shall be...* I'd use the same terminology from the sentence before: *No lower law shall be*.

I also think we should do the easy paragraphs early on. This is taken almost word for word from an earlier Constitution:

Commission of any game action that is not instantly reversible by any person other than the designated player(s) while carrying out his/her duties is strictly forbidden.

We had an exception for checking peace treaties in Civ III. This exception may or may not be needed in Civ IV...

One thing we've got to keep in mind is that Civ4 is an entirely new game, so now may be the best (if not only) time to use the "evolution method" of lawmaking.

In other words, why don't we actually start as inarticluate caveman settlers and build our laws as we gain more knowledge of the game mechanics? Since many of us will be looking at a "brave new world" for the first time in years, this may our only chance to pursue such a concept.

Of course there would need to be basic guidelines to address mishandling of the save etc, but starting things this way would allow us to begin the game faster. :)
This would be an interesting way to play, but I doubt it'll work with our group (no offense to anyone).

Gotta like this so far!

First and foremost, this is a completely new game, and we've probably got a lot of things to "unlearn" from Civ3. Any ruleset that we put out must be easily changed from top to bottom.

As others have pointed out, we know that we've got to have some information about playing the save in there. That's pretty darn easy. Go with everything that's worked from the previous DG's. The rest - beats me.

I really like the DP pool from DG 7, and I think that's something that should be used. It allows more people to play and connect with the game than before.

Other than that - I promise not to bring in any preconceptions. At least, not knowingly.

-- Ravensire

In other words, why don't we actually start as inarticluate caveman settlers and build our laws as we gain more knowledge of the game mechanics? Since many of us will be looking at a "brave new world" for the first time in years, this may our only chance to pursue such a concept.
:goodjob:

I like this idea, it would make the game alot more like a real civilization rising up from prehistory.
Wolf

Agreeing with Ravensfire AND DZ here...

With Ravensfire, there are some things we know right away we can put in (basic, generic rules about keeping order and fairness). With DZ, adding rules that need to be covered as we experience them is a great way to deal with them. In any case, we definately need to start a ruleset's contents from scratch (much like the code in Civ4!).

How about this

1.No group or assembly of citizens shall be banned, unless acting against forum rules, to ensure freedom of speech.

2.No citizens group shall be banned or outlawed due to the behavior of a single member.

OK, where do we start? It's been awhile since I helped write a constitution...

...but starting fresh seems a bit, well, like reinventing the wheel. Why should we forget all the errors we made in the Civ III demogames? Do we really want history to repeat itself?

One way we can start fresh is to write a constitution that focuses on how demogame decisions are to be made - and then use that framework to decide how we're going to organize ourselves. There's no reason why we cannot write a demogame constitution now that will serve all future Civ IV demogames. I'm not suggesting we lock ourselves into one way of playing the demogame. I'm all for trying different things from demogame to demogame (or within a single demogame for that matter). I'm suggesting there is a basic framework common to all demogames and it is those common things that should form the constitution.

Off the top of my head some of these basics are: no unauthorized playing of the save, citizen 'rights' and responsibilities, a reaffirmation of forums rules, a very rough and flexible outline of government, how the constitution can be changed, and the role of lesser laws. I also think the relationship of mods to the demogame should be addressed.

Agreed, and instead of focusing on the Constitution immediantly, let's get our organization working first. Before we even start on the Constitution, let's get the help threads up, let's get everything organized efficiently, etc. We lose dozens of people, because we never describe what the hell the demogame is.

We should wait, atleast a month before we even start working on the Constitution. It gives everybody plenty of time to get the game, and get use to it.

we need to wait awhile, like Strider said, to start.... Nobody except the beta testers know how to play...

we can still decide on some parts of the constitution that do not require civ 4 knowledge in the mean time.

I think we need to slow down. Civ4 WILL be different, and I expect we'll need a brand new way to organize the executive branch. I'd say that we give the whole thing a good, long rest. Let's wait for the current Civ3 DG to run it's course, so we can actually allow people to acquire the game, get it running, and actually grasp an understanding of how it works before immeadiately diving into something new.

If we're really that eager, the first Civ4 DG should be a test run - running perhaps a bare-bones government (just one elected leader, a President, to run it, and a removal of the restriction that prevents 'unauthorized play' to encourge some experimentation) on a low level of play, so we can give everyone a chance to get in and talk about the game while we also organize a new government.

There are many variables we need to test out, anyway - for example, Civ4 is a fully 3-D game, which will almost surely mean that anyone will have difficulting alt-tabbing in and out of the program. Does this mean an end to the current format of the turnchat? etc.

Should we wait a bit to start playing the actual game? Absolutely! Not too long, or we won't be doing our part in addicting the people who sign up to CFC because Civ4 is their first game in the series. :D

Waiting to discuss it is a surer means of turning newcomers away than anything else I can think of.

Wanna keep people from leaving because they don't understand what's going on? Take a good look at this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132420) and do what I do. Every newcomer should be welcomed, every question answered. Don't wait until a structure is put around those answers. Don't wait for the greeting committee to be formed. We experienced DGers have an opportunity to grow our community.

Does this mean we shouldn't have a FAQ? Of course not, I'll be disappointed if one isn't started by tonight! (edit: it would have been helpful to read it myself before posting this :blush: ) If you know something which should be there, then put it there -- the editing and organization can wait, but we need to make the most of these exciting times!

Poets, Writers, Scribes -- pens at the ready, and CHARGE! :D

Edit: Oh, by the way... that FAQ thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132286) in the main forum isn't an empty header thread, Chieftess posted the first version of the FAQ itself. Still, if you want to add content then let's get content added.

Should we wait a bit to start playing the actual game? Absolutely! Not too long, or we won't be doing our part in addicting the people who sign up to CFC because Civ4 is their first game in the series. :D

Waiting to discuss it is a surer means of turning newcomers away than anything else I can think of.

Wanna keep people from leaving because they don't understand what's going on? Take a good look at this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132420) and do what I do. Every newcomer should be welcomed, every question answered. Don't wait until a structure is put around those answers. Don't wait for the greeting committee to be formed. We experienced DGers have an opportunity to grow our community.

Does this mean we shouldn't have a FAQ? Of course not, I'll be disappointed if one isn't started by tonight! (edit: it would have been helpful to read it myself before posting this :blush: ) If you know something which should be there, then put it there -- the editing and organization can wait, but we need to make the most of these exciting times!

Poets, Writers, Scribes -- pens at the ready, and CHARGE! :D

Edit: Oh, by the way... that FAQ thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132286) in the main forum isn't an empty header thread, Chieftess posted the first version of the FAQ itself. Still, if you want to add content then let's get content added.

So your proposing that we stick our heads into a hole, before we manage to widen it enough for our whole body? For what reason, excitement? No thanks, I'll opt out of that one, I happen to like my facial features very much.

We handle forum organization, keep any game elements (or ideas) to ourselves for about two weeks. Then we start working on what the game should be like. Wait untill we got the god damn foundations before we start building the house.

Be Patient, finalize it, work out the bumps, takes everything one step at a time. Don't charge blindly into a spear.

ministers should be outlined origionaly. all the positions should be decided beforehand. This will allow for easier elections

Should we wait a bit to start playing the actual game? Absolutely! Not too long, or we won't be doing our part in addicting the people who sign up to CFC because Civ4 is their first game in the series. :D

Agreed!

Hmm, let's see, just how fast could we start this?

Okay - blank slate. So, we go with a Governing Council the first term - 3 or 5 people that actually create the instructions. They determine how to organize themselves. DP Pool, so everyone has the chance to play that wants to.

The Council is responsible for creating more structure as needed.

We could start polls for game settings on Friday, and go from there.

For the ruleset, we go with a complete basic set - like the two section mentioned above, the stuff about playing the save, elections are once a month. Rules can be proposed by anyone, after discussion has petered out, a poll is put up. Simple majority for all rules.

We go with the absolute minimum, and pass rules as we need to. Heck, we'll figure the offices and such out as we go. We don't know enough to guess, so let's create as we play!

The best part is that inside of two weeks, DG4 is up and running. Can you imagine the fun of discovering a new game with everyone else? Of making mistakes, and working our way out of them? Of finding that old standard strategy really hurts you now? Of finding that new way that completely turns the game around? I can't wait!

Thoughts?

-- Ravensfire

I agree, also i think that somesort of constitutional convention take place. For example we elect 5 people to be founding fathers....

You've been talking to Strider, haven't you?

In other words, why don't we actually start as inarticluate caveman settlers and build our laws as we gain more knowledge of the game mechanics? Since many of us will be looking at a "brave new world" for the first time in years, this may our only chance to pursue such a concept.

This is what I've been trying to say all along, and you guys look at me like I'm nuts. ;)

I've never done a Demogame before but might I suggest that we give some time to let people figure out what settings they like and what strategies work and which don't, then as somone suggested we vote on the game settings and a president. After that we could just play it by ear, mayors being elected after cities have been established, possibly even before. And the rest will be trial and error and we could add to or ajust the constitution if the need arises or we discover something we had previously not known.

Sorry if this is all been said before or wether it's even been done before, as I stated before, I've never done a Demogame before.

We handle forum organization, keep any game elements (or ideas) to ourselves for about two weeks. Then we start working on what the game should be like. Wait untill we got the god damn foundations before we start building the house.


The foundation is already laid. See this Citizens Forum, and the Government Forum, and the Polls Forum? That is the foundation. Or are you talking about something else? :rolleyes:

If you have a specific proposal, please enlighten us. :D

Really, we do want to hear something positive.

Hmmm, we could poll this.

A: Jump headlong into the game with a basic structure and make things up as we go
B: Wait several weeks until we've played the game, then start on a full ruleset
C: Other
D: Rubber biscuits?

-- Ravensfire

The foundation is already laid. See this Citizens Forum, and the Government Forum, and the Polls Forum? That is the foundation. Or are you talking about something else? :rolleyes:

Looks more like a forum than a foundation to me. :rolleyes:

If you have a specific proposal, please enlighten us.

Really, we do want to hear something positive.

Simple enough, first two weeks of the game we get ourselves organized. We discuss/make decisions on the following aspects:


Republic or Democracy?: Do we want to do this the old-fashion way, and just leave everyone open to propose/discuss ideas, or do we elect a body of law makers who take a general census of what the people want, and then handle the boring bits?
Forum Layout: Do we want to use Stickied threads often? Do we want the registries? Is there anyway to quickly organize current discussions, that might actually work?
Specify exactly what goes inside of each forum. The Polls forum speaks for itself, however both the Government and Citizens Forum are a bit iffy. Do we want EVERYTHING related to the government inside of the governments forum? Even discussions?
Create a list of things we need to get the game started (Create Constitution(obvious) and anything else).
After a Constition(s) has been created, how do we decide if the citizens accept it? 2/3rds majority? Simple Majority? Do we poll the entire constitution, or article by article?


The list can go on longer, but it's getting late and I'm tired. We have no idea what the hell the game is going to be like, as such, it's pointless and stupid to start discussing how were going to run it. We have the forums infront of us, we have knowaledge over what needs to be done to get a Demogame up and running, regardless of the game. Let's take it step-by-step, and do what we know.

Agreed!

Hmm, let's see, just how fast could we start this?

Well, we really do need some citizens who actually have the game first. Here's where I agree with Strider, maybe a week or two before the actual game starts. What I don't agree with is waiting even a day to talk about the core rules.

Okay - blank slate. So, we go with a Governing Council the first term - 3 or 5 people that actually create the instructions. They determine how to organize themselves. DP Pool, so everyone has the chance to play that wants to.

The Council is responsible for creating more structure as needed.

Hmm, I wonder why have a council at all? What if we just go with pure democracy? Sure, use the DP pool, but use some kind of randomizer so that brand new people have a chance.

We could start polls for game settings on Friday, and go from there.

Unfortunately we may still be clueless about the game itself at that point. Let the general public start pressuring for a start when they are ready -- it will still be early enough I'm sure. :)

For the ruleset, we go with a complete basic set - like the two section mentioned above, the stuff about playing the save, elections are once a month. Rules can be proposed by anyone, after discussion has petered out, a poll is put up. Simple majority for all rules.

We go with the absolute minimum, and pass rules as we need to. Heck, we'll figure the offices and such out as we go. We don't know enough to guess, so let's create as we play!

One more section on how to handle disputes and that might just be enough. I have an idea in mind for two levels of rules, how we behave "out of game" as one level, and how we make decisions "in the game" as the other part. Unfortunately there will be dissent about that, but repeating exactly the old structure is folly.

The best part is that inside of two weeks, DG4 is up and running. Can you imagine the fun of discovering a new game with everyone else? Of making mistakes, and working our way out of them? Of finding that old standard strategy really hurts you now? Of finding that new way that completely turns the game around? I can't wait!

The only question mark for me is the timing. Personally, as long as this boat anchor of a computer runs the program, I'm good to go in about 2 days. I don't want to disenfranchise too many people with an unreasonably aggressive timetable. Those who aren't going to have the game for weeks or months are unfortunate but shouldn't hold us up, but we should give the ones who will be getting it immediately a few more days.

Simple enough, first two weeks of the game we get ourselves organized. We discuss/make decisions on the following aspects:


Republic or Democracy?: Do we want to do this the old-fashion way, and just leave everyone open to propose/discuss ideas, or do we elect a body of law makers who take a general census of what the people want, and then handle the boring bits?
Forum Layout: Do we want to use Stickied threads often? Do we want the registries? Is there anyway to quickly organize current discussions, that might actually work?
Specify exactly what goes inside of each forum. The Polls forum speaks for itself, however both the Government and Citizens Forum are a bit iffy. Do we want EVERYTHING related to the government inside of the governments forum? Even discussions?
Create a list of things we need to get the game started (Create Constitution(obvious) and anything else).
After a Constition(s) has been created, how do we decide if the citizens accept it? 2/3rds majority? Simple Majority? Do we poll the entire constitution, or article by article?



Thanks for clarifying. Sorry, I misunderstood your previous post which seemed to say we shouldn't even start talking about these things for a couple of weeks.

You will find that several of us are leaning towards launching in between 1 and 2 weeks. There is healty debate on how much to have specified before we start, and there are good and bad aspects for all the various positions.

My objective in starting this thread was to encourage everyone here to keep it friendly, let bygones be bygones, stop digging up old dirt, and start fresh. :D

I am new to the DemoGame so bare with me. I have read most of this thread(skimming some areas), and I haveread all of the basic info. But I like the Idea of jumping right in. The only problem with this is that many(includeing me) wont get it for a while(couple weeks). But I have an Idea for a small preamble.

We the citizens of CivFanatics Center setup this constitution for the seventh DemoGame of this forum, the first of Civilization IV. We devote this game to the progresion of unity among the forum, the free spread of ideas and opinions, and the evolution of the game of Civilization. This constitution is here for the purpose of preserveing the ideas of the DemoGame and preserveing order in the democracy. :)

just a rough draft:goodjob:

Remember, people outside the US will not ge the game for a while yet, UK release date is the 4 November for example.

That's true. There are also some new modes to play Civ IV (such as co-op mode). Do we want to try that out?

Hmmm, we could poll this.

A: Jump headlong into the game with a basic structure and make things up as we go
B: Wait several weeks until we've played the game, then start on a full ruleset
C: Other
D: Rubber biscuits?

-- Ravensfire

Shame on you - you didn't include abstain!

I'm all for starting up in two weeks or so - say first or second week in November. I don't see the point in electing a few council members. I really don't like the idea of a few council members writing the ruleset. If we use the inarticulate cavemen analogy then we basically start out with a free for all. As someone wisely pointed out earlier the forums are there so we have a structure in place to play. What we need from the constitution are rules about who plays the save, when (how often) the save should be played and how what happened in the game play session should be recorded and presented in the forums.

Those who are saying that constitutional debates at this level, before the game comes out, are overwhelmed by the process of self-government. Those of us who aren't say this: of course we can start planning out the framework of the government now! There should not be anything holding back basic principles from being established, at the very least.

This will be my first demo game but I have caught up to speed with the process and the methods of play.

There must be revolutionary changes to the idea of the demogame constitution: with Civilization IV, the new government, to reflect the inexperience of the players, should be able to change to certain events rapidly, in order to better adjust it against unfamiliar developments.

One of the first changes I wish to propose: a king or queen, outside of the prime minister, acting as a figurehead or the spiritual leader of the nation. This person must be able to write competently and guide the spirit of the nation.

Shame on you - you didn't include abstain!
/em points at Rubber Biscuits!
I'm all for starting up in two weeks or so - say first or second week in November. I don't see the point in electing a few council members. I really don't like the idea of a few council members writing the ruleset. If we use the inarticulate cavemen analogy then we basically start out with a free for all. As someone wisely pointed out earlier the forums are there so we have a structure in place to play. What we need from the constitution are rules about who plays the save, when (how often) the save should be played and how what happened in the game play session should be recorded and presented in the forums.

The council idea was more to have a group of people to push discussions, to get things moving.

Hmm, assuming most people in Europe get their game around the 4th or so, that's the weekend to play. Shoot for discussions on game setting starting November 7th? Use the time in between to get this basic structure decided.

-- Ravensfire

Sounds good to me, Ravensfire. Say two weeks to discuss and poll settings, and start around the 21st?

Sounds good to me, Ravensfire. Say two weeks to discuss and poll settings, and start around the 21st?

I'd like for elections to stay based on the calendar month, although now would be the time to discuss whether we are interested in turn-based terms. That said, I feel that the game should kick off on December 1st, with elections starting about a week or so beforehand.

DemoGame Note: The above is an example of things we can discuss now. Do you think we should set up separate threads for each separate topic?

Strider's list is a great place to start, and will give us something to do for the next week. What do you think?

One thing we've got to keep in mind is that Civ4 is an entirely new game, so now may be the best (if not only) time to use the "evolution method" of lawmaking.

In other words, why don't we actually start as inarticluate caveman settlers and build our laws as we gain more knowledge of the game mechanics? Since many of us will be looking at a "brave new world" for the first time in years, this may our only chance to pursue such a concept.

Of course there would need to be basic guidelines to address mishandling of the save etc, but starting things this way would allow us to begin the game faster. :)
well this is a democracy game. it wouldn't be democratic if we had a king/chief/emperor and we couldn't be represented. plus, the constitution would need to be changed every time we change are government policy

We could fully incorporate a systematic RPG into the game.

Hey! Give me a break, I'm an RPG fanatic. Hell, once Final Fantasy XII comes out, you guys won't see me for acouple months.

I say we start january 25th, first turn febuary1st. So many more of us will have it after chrissmas.

We seriously need a poll for when to start, so I going to start one now in polls. Poll's open please go vote.
-the Wolf

I say we start january 25th, first turn febuary1st. So many more of us will have it after chrissmas.
This is the best Idea Yet. GroundHogs Day '06 the perfect way to remember the Demo

How about this

1.No group or assembly of citizens shall be banned, unless acting against forum rules, to ensure freedom of speech.

2.No citizens group shall be banned or outlawed due to the behavior of a single member.
should we make a bill of citizen's rights?

Feb. 1st. Nice, that's my birthday. ;)

should we make a bill of citizen's rights?

yes that would ensure our rights as individuals and as orginazations

I recon the way it should start is to have two documents, first the Fundamental Laws and the Second the Bill of rights.

Fundamental Laws:
our goverment will consist of a council of eight* elected Advisors one representing each of the ingame adviosrs (foreign affairs, military,culture, domestic, trade, science, religion and civics) this council would make the decisions on all aspects of the game and A president (or other name) would play the game during a online turnchat or offline** following the instructions of council.
On top of this a judicary made up of 3 judges to decide matters of law. mainly disputs over who does what according to our laws. all of these people would be elected at the start of each term.

This would be very simple leaving the little issues to ammendments to make the goverment work more effeinctly. of course it wouldnt have the detail of the civ3demogame, more like the orginalciv3 demogame simple constitution. These fundamental Laws would be replaced by a full fledged constitution eventually or it could evolve into one. Notice no governors, they would be added when we grow to big for the domestic leader to control. Although this would seem like alot of power to the council and president, hopefully cooperation and working with the people would make it work rather than 8 Seperate departments one council working together.

the Bill of Rights would state all the freddoms the citizens have, how you become a citizen, how the laws are moddifed and a clear statment that Democracy and goodwill are the most important things in the game. Also the bill of rights would be unchangeable as it wouldnt specific how the game is played just the rights of the citizens.

The bill would be symbolic and represent our nation like a flag or athenem.

The bill of rights should still be given the opportunity to have amendments made on it, to keep loopholes from being problematic, additions for new ideas, etc.

I like the idea of starting with simple fundamental laws and then haveing it evolve into something more fitting for Civ 4. I know that I am preaty much restateing what Nobody said, but I just wanted to show support.

Hey is your name from what says in command in concur

Hey is your name from what says in command in concur

who's name?

I Am The Future's name. And I agree that a Bill of Rights (motto?) and Fudumental Laws would be a good idea to start.

thats what ive been trying to say, we dont need to know how to play to make those laws

I am a newcomer to Democracy games - one of many. As I see it you do need a framework in place before starting the game.

This framework includes the forum (which has already been started) and at least a basic set of rules (Constitution).

To me it would seem appropriate to take the previous Civ3 constitutions as the frame work for Civ4. Rewording it as appropriate from the experience gained from its use.

At the moments the discussions are interesting but do not seem to be getting us anywhere.

So what I propose, as has already mentioned.

1. We set up a committee of 5 people who are willing to draft a basic constitution..

2. Set up a thread asking for vollenteers to do this work - set a deadline for applications. One week from now say.

People can nominate themselves or someone else who they consider suitable. A reason why they should be considered should be given.

If someone is nominated by another and they do not have the time etc to participate in the initial committee they can always post a declining message.

3. Then set up a poll so the citizens can vote for their preferred choice. Deadline of one week (or what ever is the normal time limit) for voting. The top 5 become the steering committee.

4. The only purpose of the committee is to provide a basic draft constitution based on previous ones. It is not the government.

So in three weeks time (mid November) we have a committee. There is nothing to stop discussions, proposals etc. set taking place while this is formed.

The committes deadline is to have a draft constitution in place by say early January. (7 weeks, allows them to play the game and enjoy christmas.) During this period they can publish parts of the constitution for debate and approval.


In mid January we can then start the game with at least something in place.

During January we can also start electing government posts.

As the game progress we ammend the constition accordingly.

The above will at least be a starting point and will provide some cohesian to the whole game for newcomers (this includes me.). Previous civ3 players have a grasp of what it is all about - newcomers don't and may be put of if there is nothing in place at the start to relate too.

Just my 2d/2c etc. :)

1. We set up a committee of 5 people who are willing to draft a basic constitution..



instead of them drafting the constitution why dont they just piece together the most popular ideas into the bill of rights and fundamental laws

Nope my name is not from camand and Concour it is from my e-Mail imthefuture@gmail.com

The bill of rights is going to give the right of the citizens correct? If so then it would be easy to make befor everyone has played civ 4, and then amend it as needed.

An idea would be to list 20 thing that we think could be put in the bill of rights, make a poll and then take every option that get 50*% of the votes, maybe tell people to vote for 10*. Or if 50*% isnt met for any, then we take the top 10* amounts.

i think the 5 people idea for the BoR is better, that way mods can be asked to patch the rules together and this would lead to a more forum approprite list of rules.

Three big problems with the rules committee aproach:

There could be someone left out who would make trouble on the basis of not being included.
It pretty much rules out the idea that newcomers could have much influence, given the predilection for popularity based voting.
The committee's approach could end up being unpopular.

A Bill of Rights is not needed, all of the rights can be easily stuck into a single paragraph (like it was in past DG's) and put into the Constitution. I believe that was one of the few laws that stayed the same throughout DG history also. It's not likely to be effected by Civ4, and it worked excellently in the past.

I like Harrier's method, we need someone (a mod) or a group of people (citizens) to actually get anything done inside of the pre-game. Otherwise, we have people posting threads far to early, among many other things.

However, to make the entire thing "more democratic." I say we elect two sets of five, the first set is charged with drafting the constitution, and then proposing it to the citizenry. The second set is charged with revising the above constitution, based on the citizens comments on the draft.

The first group will also be charged with starting discussions on the basic organization, etc. Then the second group will handle the game settings, etc. I'll make a list of everything each group will do if people take to this idea well.

This has several advantages, first off it makes everything organized and fairly efficient. Second, if the first set of five drafts something (or make other decisions that the majority of the citizenry dislikes), then the citizenry can just elect new people to the group later. If the citizenry likes what they've done, then it's a good chance there be voted in to do it again.

We the citizens of CivFanatics Center setup this constitution for the seventh DemoGame of this forum, the first of Civilization IV. We devote this game to the progresion of unity among the forum, the free spread of ideas and opinions, and the evolution of the game of Civilization. This constitution is here for the purpose of preserveing the ideas of the DemoGame and preserveing order in the democracy. :)


Firstly, a rank newbie re demogames here. However, I like this - it gives the overall driving reason for such a beast as the demogame to exist. I would work on the wording a bit ...

"...devote this game to the expansion of the CIV IV community ..."

Also, is the use of the word "democracy" here to represent US style democracy or just a continued play on the word demo*?

I also saw that someone said you couldn't have a king / queen in a democracy - I know a number of countries that have been doing that for ages (Australia for one). True, the only real powers that the king / queen has is to dismiss the installed Government and hold an election. Not that I am suggesting we have a monarch.

Finally, I would add my voice to starting play early so that we can learn about CIV IV soonest. How about a DG0 (IV) which is acknowledged as a trial version right from the get go.

Hmm, I wonder why have a council at all? What if we just go with pure democracy? Sure, use the DP pool, but use some kind of randomizer so that brand new people have a chance.


Sorry - should have added this to the last post - what is the DP Pool? I'm guessing that peoples votes get weighed by the number of posts they have to this forum.

Each term (1 month in length), nominations go up for the "DP Pool" (Designated Player = DP). Anybody can nominate themselves. When elections go up, anybody who gets 50% of the total votes for them (multiple people can be elected and always are) will be a DP for one turn play session (turnchat). Anybody can vote for anyone (multiple people) who they think will do a good job. :) It's a great way to get used to the way the game is played!

Err, posted in wrong thread!

nothing to see here, we are a hedge, please move along ...

-- Ravensfire

I saw that ravensfire! Nothing about a training session of course... ;)

Sorry - should have added this to the last post - what is the DP Pool? I'm guessing that peoples votes get weighed by the number of posts they have to this forum.

I hope not as that would make some more equal than others.
-the Wolf

Three big problems with the rules committee aproach:

There could be someone left out who would make trouble on the basis of not being included.
It pretty much rules out the idea that newcomers could have much influence, given the predilection for popularity based voting.
The committee's approach could end up being unpopular.

no after the commitee has a proposal ready we the citizens would vote on it. that way we have a popular constitution that has been put up by demogame veterans. in order to let newcomers have influence in the draft we could either
1. allow a newcomer into the commitee or
2. set up a thread for people to post ideas. that way the commitee could get an idea of what the newcomers want and could try to incorporate those ideas into the constitution

So has the idea of haveing a bill of rights been vetoed, and replaced with something more simple( IE 1 paragraph in constitution)?

So has the idea of haveing a bill of rights been vetoed, and replaced with something more simple( IE 1 paragraph in constitution)?

Not that I know of.

I'm not really opposed to a Bill of Rights, I just find it kind of useless. Like I said, we never had any problems with it in past Demogames as an Article inside of the Constitution. As I really don't see Civ IV effecting that element of game play, I see no real reason to change it.

Of course, I'm just one person. While I've held considerable power in the past, I can't 'veto' anything.

Three big problems with the rules committee aproach:

(1) There could be someone left out who would make trouble on the basis of not being included.

But they can put themself forward to be elected. If they do not get voted in - that is Democracy. :sad:

Also the committee I proposed is only going to last for 3 months, while the draft is put together.

It means that somethink is being done - rather than having lots of different views discussed over a long period time.

Those not elected are still able to influence the committee by posting their views in the appropriate forum. We could open a thread just for that purpose and get a mod to lock it when the committee has finished it's work.

Remember it is there just to start the ball rolling - not control the game.

(2) It pretty much rules out the idea that newcomers could have much influence, given the predilection for popularity based voting.

We could stipulate that 1 or 2 of the 5 members be newcomers. Probably a good idea - as new blood means new ideas. If the newcomers drop out after a few weeks - elect another newcomer citizen to take their place.

You should know from the Civ3 democracy games whether citizens are new or not.

(3) The committee's approach could end up being unpopular.

Any approach we take could could end up being unpopular, or should I say will end up being unpopular, with some citizens.

Again the point of the committe is just to get things started.

There will be plenty of time afterwards for people to lobby to change the draft constitution once the game gets started.

That could actually be part of the draft - that every 3 or 6 months the constitution is discussed and amendments or additions are proposed.


Also we could adopt Striders proposal of having two committee's. That may alleviate the probable troublemakers you mentioned. If they did not make it onto the first committee - well they may be on the second.

First committee - top 4 votes. (plus highest voted newcomer).
Second committee - votes 5 - 8 (plus 2nd highest newcomer).

Of course, I am being politically incorrect here - in assuming newcomers will not get sufficient votes to be in the top 10. :D

.Also we could adopt Striders proposal of having two committee's. That may alleviate the probable troublemakers you mentioned. If they did not make it onto the first committee - well they may be on the second.

First committee - top 4 votes. (plus highest voted newcomer).
Second committee - votes 5 - 8 (plus 2nd highest newcomer).

Of course, I am being politically incorrect here - in assuming newcomers will not get sufficient votes to be in the top 10. :D

Well, I was thinking along the lines of running two differant elections, one for each committe (Basically, were hold nominations and elections for the first one.. and then were hold nominations and and elections again for the second).

Also, I belive there is really no need to specify seats for newer players. Part of the general idea is that most of the first committe will be mostly verterns. Just because the Vets are the only ones who truely have an idea about how to do things. No offense to the newer players, but do any of you really feel confident enough to take a management role in a crucial part of the game?

What I'm hoping, is that the through the first committee's discussions, more and more people will start to learn the mechanics of the game. As more and more of the newer players distinguish themselves in these discussions, it allows them the ability to be possible canidates for the second committee.

This should fit inline with (my plans anyway) perfectly. The first committee handles the basic framework of the constitution, as I said above.. this should be the committee made up of people who have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The second committee should be made up of alot more newer players, as they will handle the revisions of the constitution, this allows alot of the newer ideas to be implemented also.

Does this sound good, or am I just making no sense?

Edit: Just to clarify this, I am not trying to exclude anyone or any group of people. I'm trying to find an efficient, democratic, and organized way to handle the pre-game discussions/decisions.

That looks like it'll work, Strider. Set it up.

Remeber there was civ2 demogames aswell. i am against this being a continaution of the civ3 demogame (which is dieing) and make it a totally new civ4 demogame

Agreed. If we want to be Persia, let us be Persia without bringing up the fact we were Persia in the past (this is Civ IV, not Civ III). New game, new demogame. :)

Well, I was thinking along the lines of running two differant elections, one for each committe (Basically, were hold nominations and elections for the first one.. and then were hold nominations and and elections again for the second).

Would members of the first committee be barred from the second?

Also, I belive there is really no need to specify seats for newer players. Part of the general idea is that most of the first committe will be mostly verterns. Just because the Vets are the only ones who truely have an idea about how to do things. No offense to the newer players, but do any of you really feel confident enough to take a management role in a crucial part of the game?

I wasn't advocating that - just addressing DaveShacks concerns.
I agree that the experienced democracy players should start the ball rolling.

What I'm hoping, is that the through the first committee's discussions, more and more people will start to learn the mechanics of the game. As more and more of the newer players distinguish themselves in these discussions, it allows them the ability to be possible canidates for the second committee.

This should fit inline with (my plans anyway) perfectly. The first committee handles the basic framework of the constitution, as I said above.. this should be the committee made up of people who have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. The second committee should be made up of alot more newer players, as they will handle the revisions of the constitution, this allows alot of the newer ideas to be implemented also.

Does this sound good, or am I just making no sense?

Edit: Just to clarify this, I am not trying to exclude anyone or any group of people. I'm trying to find an efficient, democratic, and organized way to handle the pre-game discussions/decisions.

Sounds good to me. :goodjob:

You probably need to draw up a list of required attributes of potential candidates. So people know what is expected of them.

Would members of the first committee be barred from the second?

I don't know, on one hand I want to say yes. It'll help my overall goal of trying to introduce people into the game. Then, on the other hand... if the majority of citizens still want that person, then why exclude one of our greatest thinkers at a possibly critical moment?

Were going to have to discuss this some more.

I wasn't advocating that - just addressing DaveShacks concerns. I agree that the experienced democracy players should start the ball rolling.

Agreed, we should give the first push, but then let everyone keep it rolling.

You probably need to draw up a list of required attributes of potential candidates. So people know what is expected of them.

I'll start working on it.

I don't know, on one hand I want to say yes. It'll help my overall goal of trying to introduce people into the game. Then, on the other hand... if the majority of citizens still want that person, then why exclude one of our greatest thinkers at a possibly critical moment?

Were going to have to discuss this some more.


Personnally I think it would be a good Idea to have at least two people from the first committee on the second. As it will help keep the momentum going.

They would be able to explain quicker why certain decisions were made and help keep the overall focus of the group.

From Harrier

Personnally I think it would be a good Idea to have at least two people from the first committee on the second. As it will help keep the momentum going.

They would be able to explain quicker why certain decisions were made and help keep the overall focus of the group.

I second that.

Personnally I think it would be a good Idea to have at least two people from the first committee on the second. As it will help keep the momentum going.

They would be able to explain quicker why certain decisions were made and help keep the overall focus of the group.
what if we set it up with 2 month terms.
first we elect 2 people to draft the final version of the constitution. This is one month of their term. (Exe AA)
Then 2 more people are elected as the DPs, so for one month the 2 original people are DPs. (Exe BB AA)
the next month 2 new people are elected, replaceing the original 2 (Exe CC BB)
the process repeats so that it ends up being
MONTH 1- AA
MONTH 2- BB AA
MONTH 3- CC BB
MONTH 4- DD CC
MONTH 5- EE DD
CONTINUE AS NEEDED

any ideas?:mischief:

Would members of the first committee be barred from the second?


Well we should have 1st commitee members be voted on to the 2nd commitee by at least 60% that way we have someone who the people trust as a great thinker and not have just two guys (or girls)from the 1st commitee

I posted a poll over the organization of the pre-game here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134397)