The title says it all. This is an open poll. And like all other polls made by the Founding Fathers on Constitutional issues it is non-binding. This poll will close in two weeks.

-the Wolf

Month Based Terms: An elected official will serve for one calendar month (election dates TBD -- could be at the start of the month or end of the month (like they are now). We will work that out later.

Turn Based Terms: An official will serve for X number of turns (25 turns, 40, 50 turns -- all are fine). We can work out the details later.

Keep in mind you can also base your opinion on how you want to play turns (the 1 turn a day proposal (or more) or turnchats like we have now).

I like the Month Way. so everyone always knows when the term is up.

Terms for elected officials should be on a month based system and it should be 1 month terms. This is just common sense!

Monthly terms. Time never changes.

Terms for elected officials should be on a month based system and it should be 1 month terms. This is just common sense!
:goodjob: Here here. I agree completly.
-KL

If it was by Turns it could convoluted and too hard to understand.

??

What is complicated about: 5 turns before the end of term length, nominations go up. 2 turns before, elections go up. Then the new people take over.

I forgot -- changing month lengths, and time zones are VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND! Actually, no. :P

Don't forget the US is changing its DST dates for next year, so the US will switch 2 weeks earlier than Europe, and end 1 week later. And then some states like Arizona and parts of Indiana don't do DST. But that won't matter because it isn't hard to understand...

??

What is complicated about: 5 turns before the end of term length, nominations go up. 2 turns before, elections go up. Then the new people take over.

I forgot -- changing month lengths, and time zones are VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND! Actually, no. :P

Don't forget the US is changing its DST dates for next year, so the US will switch 2 weeks earlier than Europe, and end 1 week later. And then some states like Arizona and parts of Indiana don't do DST. But that won't matter because it isn't hard to understand...

Whoa Dude there no reason to jump down the gorilla's throat. I think he meant that it's harder for someone who only has time a few times a month to know when to get on to because the Turn election will vary on when they happen, but if on a month you would know when the election would be happening every time.

Time zone differences will be a problem whether Months or Turns are used for the measure. Knowing where you are to GMT which does not change and does not have daylight saving will help.

The nominations could always start on the 1st of the month, elections on the 4th, new term on the 7th and that would solve the differing month length problems.

When will 5 turns before the end of turn length be? we won't know until it's scheduled, when will 2 turns before the end be? when will the last turns be played? again we won't know until we pretty much get there. If you think counting back from the end of the month with differing but at least know lengths is fun try counting back turns when you don't know when the last one is going to be!

Turn based would have the disadvantage that slow leaders and schedule could drag the game out unnecessarily. Or it could allow more discussion between turns without leaders feeling the need to rush through to get their turns in. But then it's not just the number of turns to be played it's the level of discussion required, a short period of critical decision making for a few number of turns is just as valid a term as a large number of turns with little to discuss.

On the whole I prefer Monthly terms.

I was just pointing out my side of the argument - sorry if it came out a bit, uh, 'agressive', that's not what I wanted.

If we do a proposal with say, 2 turns a day, and 40 turn terms, you can easily plan for when the elections are. This poll goes along with the Turnchats vs. Turns Per Day poll.

The Turnchats v Turns Per Day poll is titled "Playing the Save". I'd completely missed it.

IMO, I think months would work best.

Monthly schedule

PRO:

People who only want to vote in elections know when to show up (good for them, the lazy bums j/k)
Citizens can plan their nomination accepts vs their RL schedules more easily
Driving to a fixed ending date results in reasonable pace of gameplay CON:

Game play can be too fast as people want to make their mark
Someone might be able to be an official from the 15th to 15th but not any given full month
People who only want to vote in elections know when to show up (it's bad for the game if thats the only time they are here)
Break in the action for several days before and after elections Turn based terms

PRO:
Having a set number of turns means leaders can plan how much their contribution will be.
Less pressure on scheduling
People who only vote in elections have to keep coming back to find out when elections are (good for demogame, bad for bums)
No inconsistency for different length months.
More realism in-game -- the ruling dynasty is around for 1000 game years lets say, and then upheaval. Great roleplay possibilities here. CON:

Leaders might try to drag the game out to make their time last
Low pressure -> slow game
Hard to schedule absenses, don't know when the term will end.
"Turns" as a formal structure of the game is anti-RPG (kinda a stretch but gotta give this issue its due) so this has to be handled right.

Alternative proposal:

Give each term a minimum and maximum number of days and a minimum and maximum number of turns.

No term can end before both its minimum days and turns has passed. It ends as soon as one of the maximum days or turns has passed.

Too complicated? The balance we need? you decide!

Alternative proposal:

Give each term a minimum and maximum number of days and a minimum and maximum number of turns.

No term can end before both its minimum days and turns has passed. It ends as soon as one of the maximum days or turns has passed.

Too complicated? The balance we need? you decide!

I'm thinking 30 days max, 25 min; Turns 25 min, 75 max. I really don't know enough about demogame turns to give a good guessitment on them.
-the Wolf

Alternative proposal:

Give each term a minimum and maximum number of days and a minimum and maximum number of turns.

No term can end before both its minimum days and turns has passed. It ends as soon as one of the maximum days or turns has passed.

Too complicated? The balance we need? you decide!

Not too complicated but too flexible ;). You wouldn't know exactly when to show up for decisions, elections and so on...

My proposal:

X turns - change and therefore elections monthly. elections start on the 1st, new officials in charge from the 3rd or something like that...

Hereby it is secured people don't go wild and play to much, neither do they play too little AND everybody knows when to check for changes...

Pro and Con: This is not at all flexible... :crazyeye:

edit: I voted "don't want either" since there's no option "I want both"...

Months are fair enough for a Demogame. Turnbased terms are more sutted for a Multiteam/site demogame.

*err* What will be decided here?? We should think about a well-balanced thing here, IMHO. And a few good points were raised during this vote, IMO... (not necesserily MY points, mind you! ;) )

*err* What will be decided here?? We should think about a well-balanced thing here, IMHO. And a few good points were raised during this vote, IMO... (not necesserily MY points, mind you! ;) )

I think we'll probably just stay with months, since from what I gather that is how's it's been done, and at the moment the majority is for it.

-the Wolf

I think we'll probably just stay with months, since from what I gather that is how's it's been done, and at the moment the majority is for it.

-the Wolf

This is a historical moment, Alpha: I disagree with you for the first time so far! :D

I think the majority is for it, because there isn't an alternative mentioned like "mixed"... Mixed like here:

Originally Posted by greekguy
Terms for elected officials should be on a month based system and it should be 1 month terms. This is just common sense!
Here here. I agree completly.

The nominations could always start on the 1st of the month, elections on the 4th, new term on the 7th and that would solve the differing month length problems.

If we do a proposal with say, 2 turns a day, and 40 turn terms, you can easily plan for when the elections are. This poll goes along with the Turnchats vs. Turns Per Day poll.

edit: I voted "don't want either" since there's no option "I want both"...

We shouldn't say "monthly" then, just because the majority pressed the button: We should take the discussion going on into account and start a new poll with the 3rd option right away, IMHO. Personally I would stand in for Furiey's proposal in case this would be done... (in addition to a limited no. of turns per period AND a few fixed dates for basic decision-polls: (taking this proposal it'd mean 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th)

And it shouldn't be a problem, because:

like all other polls made by the Founding Fathers on Constitutional issues it is non-binding.

Shouldn't be too much of a hassle, should it?!? :D

How about a runner-up between monthly and monthly + turn max, since obviously the other options have been voted down on...

This is a historical moment, Alpha: I disagree with you for the first time so far! :D

I think the majority is for it, because there isn't an alternative mentioned like "mixed"...

We shouldn't say "monthly" then, just because the majority pressed the button: We should take the discussion going on into account and start a new poll with the 3rd option right away, IMHO. Personally I would stand in for Furiey's proposal in case this would be done... (in addition to a limited no. of turns per period AND a few fixed dates for basic decision-polls: (taking this proposal it'd mean 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th)

True I forgot to add mixed, I'll put another poll up. I you looked at who voted for what you'll see I don't care one way or the other which is probably why I for got to include it.

-the Wolf

I voted for turns and would support them over months, but I think the blended turn limit and time limit is really the best choice. My main concern is the possibility of a leader attempting to rush gameplay for a more powerful imprint.

I voted for turns and would support them over months, but I think the blended turn limit and time limit is really the best choice. My main concern is the possibility of a leader attempting to rush gameplay for a more powerful imprint.

I think that's why the other poll was put up Man.

-KL