Let's face it - this demogame simply wasn't fun. I personally attribute this to the ruleset, which was too complicated, but simply, this game was just too complex and structured. A demogame is about fun and actually playing and discussing a game of civilization. In theory, it's just like a SG, except there are more people, it's more structured, and there's a ruleset.

Obviously, we've done something wrong if we're already in Term 11 (:eek:) and we're just at 1700 AD. People have left and this game is inching forward. So, the question now is, what have we done wrong?

In my view, this game was flawed from the beginning. We need to simplify this game's ruleset and eliminate some of the overly structured things. Really, we just need to explain a few important things (for example): how we play the save, what officials we have, and how elections work. After all, the fewer rules we have, the more fun the game will be, as we'll have more latitude and freedom to just play the game.

This means we're going to have to focus on designing a more streamlined ruleset and balances the simplicity and complexity of this game. Now, you're probably just thinking "Yeah, I agree, but so what? Is this all you're gonna do about it?". I've actually typed up in a Word document (which I have put in the spoiler tags) some of the issues we need to address and the questions that need answering.


Civilization 4: Game of Democracy II Topics

Forum Structure
Do we still want to use our Citizens, Government, Polls, and Roleplay forums? Do we want to switch them around? Do we want to add an Elections subforum? Maybe merge Roleplay into Citizens? What about stickies and threads in forums? Should the roles of each forum stay the same? Do we want to keep turnplay threads in the main forum? Still keep elections in the main forum?

Save Playing
Should we still play turns in turnchats or should we do it offline – or both? Should we increase the maximum number of turns played per turnchat? Should attendance for turnchats (if we use them) be more strictly enforced? How often should turn sessions be held? Do we want to keep the idea of designated players or stick with a President playing all the turns?

Ruleset
Do we want to use the Triumvirate again? If not, what kind of style? A more flexible system (just a few static positions with the ability to create more if needed), or maybe a more Civ4-oriented approach (Domestic, Financial, Civic, Foreign, Military, Science, Religion), or something else? Do we want to keep the ruleset divided into two parts, the Constitution (created only once, with more standard, less game-specific info) and the Code of Laws (containing rules about officials, elections, turn sessions, etc.)? What should be the process for changing a part of the ruleset? How should we initially create this ruleset and get the game started?

Officials
What kinds of officials do we want? A President and designated players, or just one of them? If both, what will be the role of each? A Triumvirate-style approach, a style mimicking the Civ4 advisors, or a more minimalist approach? Do we want to keep the Judiciary the same way? Or do we want a more radical approach, perhaps with a group of senators who collectively are in charge of our nation? How will governors work and how are provinces (if we have them) determined? What will the role of a term thread by an official be? Must they keep the term thread up to date with screenshots and info by the law? Can people hold two offices? Should we maybe have an “information” leader responsible for posting screenshots, maps, information, and a history of our nation?

Nominations and Elections
Do we want to do elections based on weeks/months or in-game turns? Should polls be public or private? How long should nominations/elections last? Should we have them end right on the first of a new month or not? How should the debate process work? Just post them in the nomination thread or create a separate thread? Who should be responsible for organizing elections? Can people run for two elections?

Game Setup
What kind of a map do we want? Should we get a mapmaker to create a custom one? What about game speed and difficulty level? How should we determine our civilization? Should we use Lock Modified Assets? How big should the map be? Because Civ4 uses more computer resources than Civ3, do we want to do a smaller map, but with more civilizations to compensate? Do we want to do a team game, or a game with extra or fewer civilizations?

That's a lot of things to cover, but I think they're really crucial if we want to get a game going that will actually work now that we've entered the land of Civ4. I will gladly start some discussion on things like "How to Play the Turns Discussion", "Forum Structure Discussion", and "Government Officials Discussion". We need to eliminate "fluff" and abstract things from the ruleset (example of the Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3514690&postcount=2) - in my eyes, "right of representation", "mandate", and "referendum" are just too awkward. Let's be concrete and minimize the variety of ways things can be interpreted.).

My number one goal: eliminating wordiness, repetition, and too much complexity. Let's keep it simple and, thus, more fun.

This was a really long post, so thanks for reading it if you did. :blush: If you didn't read all of this, I advise you to at least read the paragraph after the spoiler. The MTDG has over 100 people - imagine what we can do with half of that! I've enjoyed helping to organize the MTDGs and am very willing and excited to get this one started, particularly because I don't play a whole lot of single player Civ4.

Any objections to starting discussion and revision of the ruleset and structure for a Civ4 DG2? Mind if I get started? :)

We have discussions going in the new demogame start here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189487) and is this demogame dead (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185799) threads.

Those topics (in the spoiler) are the ones which need to be discussed, and for the most part they're what we're talking about. :)

Well the issue that we would need to tangle with is which version are we going to use? Patched Vanilla Civ4 or Patched Civ4:Warlords?

We could leave that decision until sign-up for the new game and let the people vote. Just like we decide the Civ, type of map, etc, we can decide whether to use the expansion or not.

Personally I think we should play at least one more Demo game on Vanilla, since we're basically taking a mulligan on this game and it would be nice to have one Demo game on Vanilla.

We have discussions going in the new demogame start here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=189487) and is this demogame dead (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=185799) threads.

Those topics (in the spoiler) are the ones which need to be discussed, and for the most part they're what we're talking about. :)

Yeah Dave, I see those threads. The problem is, I don't see much getting done - rather, what I'm trying to say is, although you guys are discussing very well what went wrong and why the game wasn't too fun, how much can you accomplish in one thread with jumbled ideas and thoughts? After all, there is no way 1 thread alone can address the topics I wrote in the spoiler.

My proposal is that we just actually START some threads where we discuss, for example, the role of turnchats and how the save is played - then, once we finish, we can easily just write it up into a part of the ruleset. That way, we're actually making progress. Rinse & repeat with different topics (elections, officials, etc.) and you've got a good portion of the ruleset that is new & improved thanks to our discussion of what went wrong and how we can fix it.

Final line: stick with 1 thread to discuss or start to branch out into more specific, focused discussion threads with a purpose?

Well the issue that we would need to tangle with is which version are we going to use? Patched Vanilla Civ4 or Patched Civ4:Warlords?

I'd like to stick with Vanilla, but this is one thing we can poll.

Forum Structure
We could remove roll-play and add it to citizens. There's nothing wrong with the stickies.

Save Playing
Have some DP's play some offline turnchats (10 turns).


Officials
President
Turn-Players
Domestics (minister of interior)
Foreign
Military
Judiciary (3 members)
Sub-positions (may be filled, but don't have to be filled. Elections will have a not-fill option): governors, ambassadors, science position, naval commander.


Nominations and Elections
Based on 50 in-game turns. President is responsible for making threads.


Game Setup
Pangaea, Small, extra civs, low sea level.

See dutchfire, this is the thing: I want to split up the discussions into some different threads were we can: discuss, poll, write parts of the ruleset. Your comments are great, and exactly what I want, but if we all start talking about everything that has to do with the DG in 1 thread, it'll be too confusing.

You know what, I think I'll just start a thread or two later today...

I agree with the idea of more discussion but disagree with the assumption nothing was getting done. :D

From the other thread, with spoiler tag removed to make it easier to see:

first shot at making a constitution

The law
The law shall consist of: (in order of importance)
The forum rules represented by the moderators. The moderators may veto anything done during this demogame.
This constitution
lower forms of law, lower forms of law may be made according to this constitution. These lower forms of law may not contradict the constitution.

The citizens
Any member of the Civilization Fanatics Forums may participate in this game of democracy. To get the right to vote they need to register in the citizen's registry, and apply to the game of democracy group (done in the user control panel).

Citizens have the following rights, only limited by the forum rules:

Freedom of Speech
Eligibility to hold an office
Entitled to a fair and speedy trial
Right to vote
Right to Assemble


Decisions of the people
The following ways of decision making by the people are allowed (in order of seniority):
Initiative, a binding poll started by a citizen. This can only be repealed by moderators and more recent initiatives.
Recall, a poll made by a citizen, that may remove an official from his position.
Mandate, the election of an official. The official can make decisions that can be recalled.
Approval, The absence of non-approving citizens in a discussion that has been open for 3 days.

Elections
All elections will be at the same time. Before the elections begin, a nomination thread has to be open for 3 days, listing all positions for which elections will be held. Election polls shall be private. The candidate with most votes at the end of the election will win the election. If two or more candidates tie, run-off polls should be held until one candidate wins the election.

Playing the Save
1. No person may play the save other than a Designated Player specifically tasked to do so, or an official who is required to attempt certain actions to get information about what is possible in the game.
2. If any action must be performed outside a scheduled play session, to obtain information about possible options, the game must then be immediately closed without saving, and without performing further actions.
3. Obtaining information which would not be visible to someone playing the game, at the current point in time reflected by the current saved game or a previous saved game, by any mechanism, is prohibited. As noted in Section 2 of this Article, actions performed by an official, where performing the action is the only way to determine options, are permitted as long as the game is immediately closed following such investigation.
4. Inadvertent discovery of information shall not result in any penalty, provided no attempt is made to further disseminate the information or use it to advantage within the game.
5. Use of any exploits is prohibited. No person may manipulate the game in any way other than by normal play mechanisms, unless expressly permitted by law.

Judiciary
There shall always be a judiciary, consisting of 3 members. The judge, prosecuter, and the defender.
The Judiciary will review and clarify the constitution and any other type of law on citizens request. These reviews and clarifications will be saved in an appropriate thread, and will be called an Inquiry.
The Judiciary will post their procedures at the start of term.
Any citizen may ask for legal help from the defender, and the defender must give this help privatly unless he is involved in the case himself. Then the judge will have to give the citizen legal help. The prosecuter will defend the cause of the citizenry.

Amendments
This constitution shall have to be ratified in a public poll open for at least 4 days. The majority of non-abstain votes cast will have to be yes for this constitution to be ratified. The constitution may be amended in a poll open for at least 4 days and public. 60% of the non-abstain votes cast in such poll have to be yes for the amendment to be ratified.
Minor changes may be made, but will only be official if no-one has opposed the change within 5 days. Otherwise, the change should be treated as an amendment.

more coming later.

more coming later.

more on that, well, later. I think I might have some time tomorrow (I've got exam week, so I should be learning, but for me, it just means extra free time :p)

The first three paragraphs are all too abstract. I hate when we start discussing the various types of polls. Initiative? Recall? Mandate? Approval? Who cares? Part of the reason why people left is because of confusion. We need to think about what we're actually writing and make it simpler. I appreciate your efforts dutchfire, but I think none of us can start to write a ruleset yet - we need to go section by section.

What I'm trying to say is this:

How was that section on elections determined? How can you truly write the section on elections before you have a thread to discuss it?

How was that section on playing the save determined? Do we really still want to use DPs? Maybe require the officials to play the save and get rid of DPs? Shouldn't there be a thread to discuss this?

I won't repeat myself any further, overall: let's start discussion threads on the sections of the ruleset. Having one big thread where one person talks about X, another about Y, someone complains about Z won't accomplish anything quickly. We've got to stop just having 1 person write up a ruleset, everyone just say "yeah, sure" and then realize..."oh wait, I don't like this" in the middle of the game.

We need to actually get people's input on every section, and the only way to do that is to start input threads on those very sections for people to suggest new changes from what we use every time.

not to break up the thread...but are we indeed bailing on the previous game???

I dont have much to add as I probably will only be playing the next DG as a citizen not looking at saves. I personally think the system was fine....if we allowed officials to actually make decision instead of mandating that they check on the majority of the decisions. The biggest killer of interest was the slow down by forced checking and the game speed it self. With a faster game speed and less citizen control over the officials things would have gone smoother.IMHO

Democratic means every person directly votes for each issue where as what I propose is more of a republic...you vote for a official who you hope will vote/act like you would on the issue. If we chose to have complete citizen control then we dont need any officials...only someone( o rmore than one) who will play turns and post discussion/polls on the decisions.

I loss interest in the game primarily due to a move and starting a new job...I still followed the threads, I just didnt have time for indepth thought and input. Once you leave the game for a month...its hard to come back without a big effort to catch up.

I completely agree with Ginger_Ale. To get this thing moving we need to make threads about the development of specific subjects, not just have these three general threads floating around where people just input what they think went wrong, someone suggests how to fix it, and then another person inadvertently swings the topic. Since this was my first demogame, what should be our very first matter of discussion. We've pointed out pretty much everything we disliked and thought went wrong, so let's not go through that again.

So what is the first matter at hand? (Hoping someone posts what they think, and then posts a separate thread for that matter.)

I started a nominations and elections discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193538) with prompt questions to get people's thoughts going. :)

Something that GA forgot to mention in the first post and the thing I'm worried the most about in this game. Introduction/Help threads. I think this should be the VERY first thing we get working on.

Now, I see no reason why we should really discuss newbie threads much. It's pretty straight forward. So I'm perfectly willing to lead this area of starting the new game and get started on them. However, I don't want to do the work by myself. It's not that I'm unwilling to do all of the work myself, it's just that it doesn't feel right to me. The demogame is more than what I think it is, and it just doesn't feel right to just write everything myself. So I'd like to get a couple volunteers.

We can possibly use OpenOffice writer and just e-mail it back and forth.. using the comments and the like. I'll take as many volunteers as will sign up. The idea being is that I'll write a rough drift and the others will edit/add-on/omit as they feel is needed.

We can possibly use OpenOffice writer and just e-mail it back and forth.. using the comments and the like. I'll take as many volunteers as will sign up. The idea being is that I'll write a rough drift and the others will edit/add-on/omit as they feel is needed.

Google docs! It works okay, and allows anyone with the password to edit them anytime, anywhere.

We could have a Code of Laws draft placed there too.

What's wrong with creating a thread?

Post-ownership, only one person can edit the post containing the draft, instead of everyone.
It can be done of course, but it doesn't encourage people to make little contributions. And it's loads of work for the one that has to edit the post everytime.

edit: I've also started a thread on offices (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193574)

Post-ownership, only one person can edit the post containing the draft, instead of everyone.
It can be done of course, but it doesn't encourage people to make little contributions. And it's loads of work for the one that has to edit the post everytime.

edit: I've also started a thread on offices (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193574)

Whoa, excellent find. I didn't even know that existed. Now you got me all excited, lets use google docs for damn near everything! It'll be easier!

What's wrong with creating a thread?

As dutch said above, only one person can edit the thread. This will allow multiple people to edit the document. Also, I'm in college now... and most of the free time I have is during lectures (don't ask). I usually have my laptop with me during school hours, but I can't access CFC from school. I was hoping originally to use OpenOffice for I can do some of the work at school. However, I know I can get on google at school. So this works just as well.

Also, I'd like to be able to spend my free time out of school with my girl ;).

----------------

I started up the document. Right now it's just a copy & paste from the help guide. I'm about to leave for lunch in about 10 minutes, so I'll make some actual changes when I get back. If anyone wants to help, just tell me.

I'll be glad to help, just give me the link. We might have to wait until some of the discussion ends and the ruleset is written up for some of the questions, but the general ideas we can answer.

PS: Where did everyone go from this forum? I think I'm going to go PM some DG vets...

I'll be glad to help, just give me the link. We might have to wait until some of the discussion ends and the ruleset is written up for some of the questions, but the general ideas we can answer.

PS: Where did everyone go from this forum? I think I'm going to go PM some DG vets...

Whoops, I need your e-mail address (just PM it to me). I'll add you as a collaborator.. then you can edit the document whenever you want.

Something that GA forgot to mention in the first post and the thing I'm worried the most about in this game. Introduction/Help threads. I think this should be the VERY first thing we get working on.


Every time you mention this topic, I vow to tell you the same thing I've been telling you for two years now. If you're not satisfied with into/help threads, then just write them. :mad:

ale.of.ginger AT gmail DOT com

Dave, I think that's exactly what Strider intends to do (write them). I do agree it's high time we finally put some effort into converting people in demogame fanatics - we could use more participation!

Dave, I think that's exactly what Strider intends to do (write them). I do agree it's high time we finally put some effort into converting people in demogame fanatics - we could use more participation!

I'll be pleasantly surprised if we do see action on intro/help this time instead of just continuous bleating about it. I can't help with it because I have a complete blind spot on writing at an introductory level -- I don't know what it feels like to not "get it" without effort, so can't write to that audience.

Whoops, I need your e-mail address (just PM it to me). I'll add you as a collaborator.. then you can edit the document whenever you want.

My gmail address is daveshack.cfc.

You both should be added. You don't need a gmail account, it let me make a user account with my sbcglobal.net e-mail. Although, I'm guessing if you already have an account with google.. you don't need to make one ;).

Anyway, you should be able to access it here: http://docs.google.com/?pli=1

Okay, thanks. A lot of that is outdated and needs to be revamped. I'll give it a more in-depth look and revision hopefully later tonight.

Will others be given the password?

Will others be given the password?

Not a password, you just give me your e-mail address and I add you either as a collaborator (where you can edit the document) or a viewer. No password required.

Email is slny06 AT gmail DOT com

Ahhh, slny06@gmail.com then, if you would like to add me.

You've been added as a collaborator. Also, I just realized that you can see revisions/edits that you actually made to the document. That makes it about 3x better than just editing on the forums. Why don't we use this for the constitution also?

I would have no objection to that.

Not a password, you just give me your e-mail address and I add you either as a collaborator (where you can edit the document) or a viewer. No password required.
CivGeneral@gmail.com

Please let me know Strider that you added me in so I can remove the email.

Please let me know Strider that you added me in so I can remove the email.

You've been added.

Except that you quoted the post with the email address... I think he wanted to erase it after being added. ;)

I agree with using it as a workspace for the constitution and other things. We could create a DG2 account and then it wouldn't need to be carried under someone's personal space, but if it's like the other google things it will have gigs of free space so it wouldn't matter.

evldrunen@msn.com

It is a good system!

Mine didn't work, evidently the email is case sensitive. Please add me again using all lower case.

dutchfire you've been added.

Mine didn't work, evidently the email is case sensitive. Please add me again using all lower case.

Okay, tried it again. Hopefully it will work now ;).

it works now, deleted email

you logged in to gmail before you tried clicking the link right?

Yes, I had logged in first, but that didn't work as of my previous post. It appeared when I tried it today. :)

Creating a userid for the DG to anchor it all would still be good because then by setting that id as a collaborator we can get a list of all the docs which are being worked no matter who starts them -- or we can login using the new gmail account to create docs, and then collaborate using our personal ids which don't need to be gmail.

So, the new gmail account to act as a anchor point is cfc.demogame with a password set to the site admin's name in lowercase. (Note I described it this way so spammers can't scan for it, please don't put the email and actual password in close proximity ;) ) If you agree with changing to this method, you can login using the new ID and move documents into it. :D

Im somewhat leaning towards a bunch of collaborators, so we can see exactly who made what changes. It also limits the chances of someone messing with it (even though we can revert to older versions.)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. "Create" them with the common ID so there is a single place one can get a list of all the docs, but use personal IDs to make changes. A wiki might be better, then you get a structure around the docs.

Don't forget we need to put it back into forum form afterwards, so don't get too fancy with formatting. :)

Another thing we might start working on is a list of things that should be polled.
How do I get to the documents by the way?

Another thing we might start working on is a list of things that should be polled.
How do I get to the documents by the way?
The documents you have access to are listed here (http://docs.google.com/?pli=1), and you can just click one of them to get started.

The documents you have access to are listed here (http://docs.google.com/?pli=1), and you can just click one of them to get started.

How do we get a list of docs other people are working on and haven't given us access? :p

BTW, I tested the access thing and there seems to be a random, sometimes significant delay between granting access and the doc showing up on the other person's list. Don't know why, and it's not like you can complain about a free service.

Are we starting over? Becuase I wish to get bvack involved in the Demogame.

Yes, please review and comment on all the threads labelled DG2 that you want to. :D

Has anyone poked the mods about creating a new Demogame II forum or are we going to use the old forums?

These forums are okay IMO.

Just need to clear them out.

I don't think it would be too much trouble to ask TF for new forums, especially since it seems we want to eliminate the Roleplay forum.

Let's first decide which forums we want, then make the request. Time for a new thread. :)

There were a lot of comments during DG1 that the rules didn't reflect the majority opinion because the majority wasn't present during the discussions which led to the rules. Ignoring the DL issue, which is in the past and not something we need fear unless someone has a stash of widely spaced IP addresses and email addresses, there is still the issue of having a "quorum" during the discussions and polling.

So, we should probably request an announcement and hold off on finalizing discussions and starting polls until the announcement has been out for a few days and people start checking in.

Do those who are here agree that we need to do a pregame announcement to build up numbers before setting the rules? Do you have concerns about doing that? Anyone want to participate in drafting the actual announcement?

Make the announcement when the polls start?

"Hello Provolution, it appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks. Why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution, or participate in a discussion in any one of our forums?"

A few moments to ask a question... Quite, I seem to get "taught" again.
Well, help provide solutions... We have seen how that went :)
Participate in a discussion... Indeed, we will see the fruition of that.

Anyhow, I am at the demogame service, and hope the culture has radically changed from before, the last 2 demogames, or I will be gone in a second.

I think we should make a series of announcements.

One now Stating the second demogame is starting it's pre-game discussion and are making rules.

A second when we start rule polls.

And a third when the game has started (defined as when office nominations starts, not when we play the first save.)

And welcome back Provolution.

There is no way on earth Thunderfall/the mods will post THREE annoucements - one each for discussion and polls??? Let's stick to one, deciding whether or not to have it before the polling/writing of ruleset, or when the game starts.

You're probably right, even though the announcements would be within a few weeks of each other. I still don't understand why he posts the GOTM every time, yet doesn't promote the demogame.

There is no way on earth Thunderfall/the mods will post THREE annoucements - one each for discussion and polls??? Let's stick to one, deciding whether or not to have it before the polling/writing of ruleset, or when the game starts.

I think it is a mistake to assume anything. A lot may depend on when these things happen. ;)

You're probably right, even though the announcements would be within a few weeks of each other. I still don't understand why he posts the GOTM every time, yet doesn't promote the demogame.

First off, ainwood posts the GOTM annoucements, not TF. ;)

But I think that happens because for each annoucement, there's a new game - he doesn't post 3 annoucements for the same game! And there is a game to promote for the GOTM each month, whereas here for the demogame, we are kind of in limbo at the moment. I think that some people would just get ticked off if they see announcements named "Civ4 DG discussion underway!" "Civ4 DG polls have begun!" "Civ4 DG has begun!". Historically, we've just had 1 per game, at the beginning of each game.

Honestly - get the ruleset done, settled and ready. Get all the game config polls ready, get the election nomination threads ready and THEN have the announcement posted. Most people don't want to talk about the rules - they want to get the game started. So set it up for that. When the announcement is made, it will be with a sense of excitement.

Capitalize on that by having the nomination threads going, and get people talking about the offices. Make sure those nomination threads clearly describe the office. That excitement will transition into the elections.

Have a poll ready for all the major settings, and start them with the nominations. Have the runoffs go at the same time as the elections, you'll close things off nicely there.

Have all the FAQ threads done and ready, and point them out to people when they ask a question.

Right now, you don't want a general announcement. People will come in, ready to play, and discover that we're weeks away from being ready. That will cost you a sizeable number of people. There is nothing wrong with a small group of people, this group of people, from creating the initial ruleset, and a great deal to benefit from it.

So finish the rules, and as it going through the ratification process, start to work on that announcement - but not earlier than that.

-- Ravensfire

Honestly - get the ruleset done, settled and ready. Get all the game config polls ready, get the election nomination threads ready and THEN have the announcement posted. Most people don't want to talk about the rules - they want to get the game started. So set it up for that. When the announcement is made, it will be with a sense of excitement.

Capitalize on that by having the nomination threads going, and get people talking about the offices. Make sure those nomination threads clearly describe the office. That excitement will transition into the elections.

Have a poll ready for all the major settings, and start them with the nominations. Have the runoffs go at the same time as the elections, you'll close things off nicely there.

Have all the FAQ threads done and ready, and point them out to people when they ask a question.

Right now, you don't want a general announcement. People will come in, ready to play, and discover that we're weeks away from being ready. That will cost you a sizeable number of people. There is nothing wrong with a small group of people, this group of people, from creating the initial ruleset, and a great deal to benefit from it.

So finish the rules, and as it going through the ratification process, start to work on that announcement - but not earlier than that.

-- Ravensfire
Agreed on pretty much all points.

After finally figuring out how to enter, I've started up a new document about things that should be polled when we start the game.

So I should just add all of you?

(or should I've started the thing up with the account Dave made?)

I'd be fine with the small group who are present now setting up the game, if I could be sure that people who aren't here now wouldn't complain about it later.

Of course who's to say that people who are here won't also complain about it too... :rolleyes:

I'd be fine with the small group who are present now setting up the game, if I could be sure that people who aren't here now wouldn't complain about it later.

Honestly, that's part of the reason we normally have an amendment process.

On another note... I still need access to those google docs you're talking about, sent a PM to Strider, no response.

After finally figuring out how to enter, I've started up a new document about things that should be polled when we start the game.

So I should just add all of you?

(or should I've started the thing up with the account Dave made?)

Either way should be fine. The key, but annoyingly manual, part is the actual giving of access.

Honestly, that's part of the reason we normally have an amendment process.

On another note... I still need access to those google docs you're talking about, sent a PM to Strider, no response.

If you're comfortable with posting an email addr here, we'll all have it to reference when adding collaborators. If not so comfortable, send me a PM and I'll see if I can add you or if it takes the owner to do it. :D

collaborators can add new collaborators as I recall.

Falcon02 is added.

Duplicated in case there is anyone who isn't following the offices thread but is following this one...

At the end of the last setup period, I told myself that I shouldn't be the main driver for this one. There are a couple of things that I do want to lay claim to (for example asking for the forum setup), but not the overall leadership.

So, who's going to open these polls? My previous remarks on polling were mostly aimed at ensuring we don't take a narrow plurality answer as the final answer and then end up with a disgruntled majority.

well I was gonna start posting a poll or two (particularly on turnchats) but for some reason I'm not seeing the option in the "new thread" page within the DG forums... I see it in other forums though.

Falcon, you have to join the Civ4 DG group...go to your User CP, under "Group Memberships" and select "Civ4 DG". I'd also PM Rik or Chieftess, because they probably don't check it often.

DS, as I wrote in the other thread, I'm planning on posting the Offices (and maybe Nominations/Elections and some others) polls tonight.

Falcon, you have to join the Civ4 DG group...go to your User CP, under "Group Memberships" and select "Civ4 DG". I'd also PM Rik or Chieftess, because they probably don't check it often.


What else can't I do without this membership of honor?

You can't vote in polls. :cringe:

Perhaps it's time to ask TF for some new forums, so that we can set up a "clean" citizen registry and group membership. It's pretty pointless to ask one of the mods to ask approval for an inactive group just to post in polls...

What else can't I do without this membership of honor?
Well you can poke and bug CT to add you in (IIRC she is the head of the group) ;)

Well you can poke and bug CT to add you in (IIRC she is the head of the group) ;)


Was already done (thus the Turnchat poll I posted last night) ;)

Since I've never taken part in any pre-demogame discussions, about how far along do you think we are. Any estimated starting time?

Since I've never taken part in any pre-demogame discussions, about how far along do you think we are. Any estimated starting time?

Maybe Feb 1st? I think we're pretty much agreed that we'll want to have a draft set of laws ready, that are good enough to start the game with though they may not satisfy the majority once everyone shows up. We want at least 2 weeks after the general announcement goes out to ratify the draft laws, poll the game parameters, and hold elections.

One thing I'd like to do again is break tradition on starting exactly on the 1st, if we need to. Elections can start earlier than usual if we're ready and we could do a long term followed by getting back into the schedule, or we could start after the 1st and have a short term.

Why wait untill Feb 1st? It seems too long to just sit around waiting.

Why wait untill Feb 1st? It seems too long to just sit around waiting.
you think we can start by Jan 1 (8 days)?

you think we can start by Jan 1 (8 days)?

Sure!

(of 2008)

-- Ravensfire

8 days, including Christmas! I'd say start term 1 on feb 1st, and have nominations and elections up a few days before.

Well, I hope during the long month wait in January that there would be some campaining to spread the Demogame to other posters to gain more citizens :).

I'm going to start working on my own draft of our Constitution, discussion has died down in pretty much all the threads except the judiciary (which I'm leaving "to be filled in later) as well as the continuous play vs. 10 turn turn chat (will also be excluded.)

If discussion has already died down, how is waiting another 5 weeks going to help?

I think it might take about 3-4 weeks to get everything proposed, polled and approved. And then the 5th week will probably take up noms and elections.

For a hypothetical Feb 1st start, we want an announcement and new forums by Jan 15th. This will give new citizens a week to find the forum, get oriented on the game, and ratify the rules, before nominations start. To make that happen we need:


A draft ruleset that a majority of the pregame crew (us) agrees to.
Welcome, help, FAQ, etc. based on the game setup we are proposing.
Proposed wording for an announcement.
Approval for the new forums and a committment to have them in place.
A plan for who is going to post each piece of information, including the draft ruleset ratification, nominations, and intro material.


I'm already working on #4, several people are contributing to #1. Looking for volunteers for the rest. :)

I'd personally leave #5 to the moderators.
When I'm back from holiday, I'm willing to help with the others.


Merry Christmas!

Well let's get rolling. I'll be taking a more proactive role in the next week.

Merry Xmas.