Basically there has been some discussion over the organization of the pre-game. You can choose from one of the following options:

Single Council
Committee of 5 elected citizens that drafts the constitution, and handles other pre-game matters.

Double Council
Two committee's of 5 elected citizens that drafts the constitution, and handles other pre-game matters. When Committee #1's term is over, Committee #2 takes over the organization.

Monarch Organization
One elected citizen handles the organization of the pre-game, using polls/discussions to decide the best options.

No Organization
Basically Anarchy.

Single Council, but where they decide the important steps and post the discussions/polls for the rest of us -- they gather our input and turn that into a constitution. Not where they have unlimited power and create a constitution that we have to abide by or else.

Single Council, but where they decide the important steps and post the discussions/polls for the rest of us -- they gather our input and turn that into a constitution. Not where they have unlimited power and create a constitution that we have to abide by or else.
thats my idea, the committe drafts the constiution with input from citizens, but every still votes on it...
the two past civ3 demogames have been actually drafted by only one person...

I voted for a double council system.

The first council handles the basic framework of the constitution, this should be a committee made up of people who have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done (veterans from previous democracy games Civ1/2/3.).

The second council should be made up of at least 2 players from the first council (max 3) and some newer players. They will handle the revisions of the constitution. This format allows newer ideas to be introduced and be implemented.

The reason for having at least two players from the first council - is to give cohesion. It will help keep the momentum going and they would also be able to explain quicker why certain decisions were initially made. It also helps keep the overall focus of the council.

Actually that could be good - some sort of screening to make sure it is understandable not only to veterans but new players alike.

After reading through some of the discussion, and as a newbie, I definitely think the two council idea would be best. Mainly because I think Strider's reasoning (assuming the goal is to get more of us new people involved) is correct (at least for me). I definitely don't want to be on a first council...but after seeing how the first one works, I'd really like to have the chance to make a contribution if possible in a second council.

No councils at all. We are all equals here, and I really don't get the idea of setting aside 5 or 10 people to handle this while the others sit on their thumbs for a month or two.

No councils at all. We are all equals here, and I really don't get the idea of setting aside 5 or 10 people to handle this while the others sit on their thumbs for a month or two.
last 2 civ3 DGs it was only 1 person that actually wrote the constiution wording, which is what I think the council should do

I voted the Doublie Council system (going to go into a quick summary, much like Harrier has).

The main idea of this is to get the job done, while adopting the newer players at the same time. Basically, the first council should be made up of (mostly) veterns. They should have a better idea of what to do. This first council will draft the consitution based on the Discussions/Polls and citizen comments. They will also handle other organization efforts, and pre-game matters (not going to go into detail on this).

Now, these discussions/polls that the first council posts, should allow several of the newer players to distinguish themselves. It will also help more people learn how the game operates. Anyway, by time the nominations/elections for the second council comes around, there should be many more people who are capable of running. Hopefully the second council would be made up of mostly those newer players I mentioned before.

Anyway, the second council will revise the drafted constitution from the first council, and handle the other late pre-game matters (mostly game settings).

I vote Anarchy. It's the only way I've been playing a demo game and it works beautifully. The trick is to organize the ramalama so that the effect of the anarchy process is a stringent and working outcome .

BTW, this poll closes (unofficially) on the 31st.

Then, on November 1st I'll post the nominations for whatever option wins (or in the case of No Organization.. I'll do nothing).

To speed things up, Nominations will run for 2 days.. and then the election itself will run for 3 days. So the pre-game organization should be completely up and running by November 7th.

i voted 2, although can we call it a constitutional congress.

Though DS and Strider have a valid points, I think just a single group of people to organize the effort will do fine.

On one hand, I think we can benefit from some form of structure to help move the process along. On the other hand, asking for a double council is just adding confusion to what we need - a simple, basic organizational structure. Restricting them to a term might cause a council to rush things due to an arbitrary deadline, while a transition from one to another can only induce confusion.

I think the first council shall set the agenda, state the articles and structure and the second council write it.

OK since some form of council will win, I must respectfully request that if the 1st council manages to finish the job, that we don't bother with the 2nd one.

Otherwise one council will write a constitution, the other will say its crap, write thier own, etc...

OK since some form of council will win, I must respectfully request that if the 1st council manages to finish the job, that we don't bother with the 2nd one.
DS, could you clarify what finishing the job means?

It seems unlikely that either one of the council systems are going to lose, so I'm going to adjust and try to get things moving abit faster.

I'll go ahead and put nominations for the first (or only, depending) council inside of the citizens forum. If for some strange reason the Monach organization ends up winning, then we can just adjust the elections to vote in only one person, instead of 5. If no organization wins, then we just have acouple more added to our post count.

Anyway, sitting around doing nothing would lose us partcipation fast.

I voted anarchy because I am a newbie and thus would like to witness and be part of everything. :D

Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS)

One council of only a couple of members to make all the preliminary decisions. Let's get this show on the road quick!!

For the constitution, why not just use one from a successful demo game?

Monarch- I'm new on this, but I want to get into the game so I say let's use, the KISS method, elect a vet to run things, and get the ball rolling.

Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS)

One council of only a couple of members to make all the preliminary decisions. Let's get this show on the road quick!!

For the constitution, why not just use one from a successful demo game?

Sucess is, like many things, in the eye of the beholder. Each demogame has featured a 'revised' constitution because we haven't found one that works perfectly yet. ;)

Sucess is, like many things, in the eye of the beholder. Each demogame has featured a 'revised' constitution because we haven't found one that works perfectly yet. ;)

And furthermore we wanted to start from the scratch since it's a completely new civ4...

Monarch- I'm new on this, but I want to get into the game so I say let's use, the KISS method, elect a vet to run things, and get the ball rolling.

I second that, but because from the thread-starters description about the monarch the elected ONE proposes certain stuff and we, the citizens get to vote whether we want that or not... Sounds good to me...