Pretty simple. Choose whichever ruleset you think we should focus on for work.

Faction Based (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=258873)
Civic Based (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257565)
Traditional (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257811)

Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=262634)

This poll will run for 4 days.

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

If you find that you can not vote because you do not belong to the democracy game group do the following.

Go to the "My Account" or "User CP" page.
Select "Groups" or "Group Membership" from the left navigation menu (near the bottom).
Locate the "Civ4 Democracy Game II: Citizens" group and select "join group"
A moderator will accept your request as soon as possible.

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

Current Talley:
Faction based - 6 (4 poll, 2 stated)
Civic Based - 0
Traditional - 3 (3 Poll)

I did just that on feb 4th. I am still waiting

I did just that on feb 4th. I am still waiting

Yeah. Our three mods seem to be inactive. I sent a private chat message to CT last night asking about getting the User Group removed and no reply yet.

Also no reply PM from DaveShack/Rik from several weeks ago.

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

In the mean time we will have to keep a running tally by post. So if everyone could voice which they support it would be welcome.

So basically for anyone new to the demogame, please post your vote here if you don't get permission in time! (it is a public poll anyway so your vote can be seen anyway) :)


Mental note after re-reading above post

Should make sure to read the entire thread two times at least before making comments! :p

Ooooooooo Dave Returns!!!!

Well I read the different things and I cast my vote for Faction :D

Current Talley:
Faction based - 6 (4 poll, 2 stated)
Civic Based - 0
Traditional - 3 (3 Poll)

User group updated. My turn to be the one smashed by RL.:run:

I felt that I had to abstain from the poll. Not that I have anything against any sort of "non-traditional" system, of course - it's just a badly timed poll that will undoubtedly have a ridiculously low turnout, thus preventing any potential newcomers to the game from coming in and proposing their own systems. Rather than deciding right here and now, I say we close this poll and start a forum-wide advertising campaign to draw new players (and old ones too!) into the discussion toward designing a new system.

Faction based is the only system that allows newcomers to have a real choice. Traditiional is no real choice, it is a choice of nostalgia and convention.

Civics would leave some choice too, too bad too few really understands it, or is willing to understand it (traditionalists dislike this the most).

"Traditional bashing" seems like trolling to me, that will be enough.

Civics would leave some choice too, too bad too few really understands it, or is willing to understand it (traditionalists dislike this the most).

The reason is, i suspect is it is a bit complicated, i certainly would be turn away as a newcomer and looking at the rules involed. The faction system is quite nice because it is a mixture of both the civic style system, while it allows people who like the good old days, to still come up with a old styled set of rules. Mind you i still think the old way of playing, with a few tweaks here and there, does still have some life in it, and is certainly the most simplest for any new comers (and me! :p) to understand and take part in.

Most of all though i agree with Octavian X, so we should get those advertising
posts up as so as possible. (might be worth making a thread in the BTS forum as well, i will set one up a little later unless anyone objects)

I felt that I had to abstain from the poll. Not that I have anything against any sort of "non-traditional" system, of course - it's just a badly timed poll that will undoubtedly have a ridiculously low turnout, thus preventing any potential newcomers to the game from coming in and proposing their own systems. Rather than deciding right here and now, I say we close this poll and start a forum-wide advertising campaign to draw new players (and old ones too!) into the discussion toward designing a new system.

It's been done already. There have been forum announcements and main page notices posted.

Croxis and I have been actively campaigning for a while now.

I am going to make a thread in the BTS forum.

Current Talley:
Faction based - 6 (5 poll, 1 stated)
Civic Based - 0
Traditional - 4 (4 Poll)
Abstain - 1 (1 Poll)

It does not matter what we vote, Traditional always get their way by delaying tactics and wearing down.

Negative talk does not help redirect behaviour.

It does not matter what we vote, Traditional always get their way by delaying tactics and wearing down.

Please realize that though I support your system, I am kinda put off by your negativity. If factions somehow don't get enough support, it still will be fun, albeit less in my opinion.

Please realize that though I support your system, I am kinda put off by your negativity. If factions somehow don't get enough support, it still will be fun, albeit less in my opinion.

I just know how this pans out, I know these people, and they know how to make it their way. Just watch out how they intend to organize the Judiciary, then you are locked up.

Who said we were going to have a judiciary?

You bet they will fight for the Judiciary, their game centers around it.

That will be up to them in their faction proposal

You bet they will fight for the Judiciary, their game centers around it.

Not all traditionalists like the judiciary, and even for those who do it's not always the central issue.

I'm trying myself to not make such generalizations any more. If there were such a generalization to be made, it would be closer to say that the central issue seems to be having rules that people must follow.

I'm trying myself to not make such generalizations any more. If there were such a generalization to be made, it would be closer to say that the central issue seems to be having rules that people must follow.

I give you a standing ovation for that :clap:.

Lately I had been turned off by the generalizations about the group that I am in, stating that I would "Keep on repeating the glory of the traditional rules", "Fight for the judiciary", "Traditionalists get their way", and other forms of negativity and generalizations. I have been more and more reluctant to voice my opinions and ideas without fear of negative thoughts and generalizations that I mainly lurk for the most part. Even now I am having second thoughts on signing for the next demogame with the continued negativity.

I may be for the judiary, but it's not a centralized issue and I envision a smaller judicary designed to make sure the game is played fairly with little bureaucracy (Anything serious requires a moderator intervention)

I think the generalizations also go the other way. "We tried it before", "It does not work", "It will be interesting to see", so the discouragement trolling goes both ways, but I got notified for it. But the fact is that Faction based (and civic based for that matter) meet habitual discouragement.

I give you a standing ovation for that :clap:.

Lately I had been turned off by the generalizations about the group that I am in, stating that I would "Keep on repeating the glory of the traditional rules", "Fight for the judiciary", "Traditionalists get their way", and other forms of negativity and generalizations. I have been more and more reluctant to voice my opinions and ideas without fear of negative thoughts and generalizations that I mainly lurk for the most part. Even now I am having second thoughts on signing for the next demogame with the continued negativity.

I may be for the judiary, but it's not a centralized issue and I envision a smaller judicary designed to make sure the game is played fairly with little bureaucracy (Anything serious requires a moderator intervention)

I'm trying myself to not make such generalizations any more. If there were such a generalization to be made, it would be closer to say that the central issue seems to be having rules that people must follow.

Just thought it was mildly humorous how you can flip those two quotes around and it makes perfect sense. In other words.. I agree with provolutions comment above. There are more generalizations from the other side than ours. The only difference is that Provolution doesn't hide them as well.

I have, so far, limited myself to keeping the game moving and defending my faction-based proposal, but I've found it increasingly tiring just defending. I have yet to see any remarkable reasons as to why we shouldn't use the faction based proposal other than that we shouldn't. It has been, so far, a rather useless debate. I hope that my continued defense, fairly sound reasoning, and solid points/purposes is the reason why the newer players seem to be supporting the faction based proposal.

I've also found the lack of initiative from anyone other than myself, Provo, or croxis rather frustrating. I have found myself increasingly lacking in time (and awareness for that matter) and had hoped several powerful steps forward will get some movement going. Right now all we need to do is finish this poll up, finalize the rules, and then chose our settings. We could have a game running by next weekend.

I was delighted when dutchfire pinpointed the cause that had alluded me; we lacked initiative. I had hoped that the general agreement with that reasoning would counter it. That, however, did not hold true. If we are really going to get this game going again then we are going to need more than just croxis and I asking what you guys want. That will doom the game automatically regardless of ruleset.

I have, so far, limited myself to keeping the game moving and defending my faction-based proposal, but I've found it increasingly tiring just defending. I have yet to see any remarkable reasons as to why we shouldn't use the faction based proposal other than that we shouldn't. It has been, so far, a rather useless debate. I hope that my continued defense, fairly sound reasoning, and solid points/purposes is the reason why the newer players seem to be supporting the faction based proposal.
Then base what we do off this poll, which seems to be Faction Based. And yes, that is mostly why :D


I've also found the lack of initiative from anyone other than myself, Provo, or croxis rather frustrating. I have found myself increasingly lacking in time (and awareness for that matter) and had hoped several powerful steps forward will get some movement going. Right now all we need to do is finish this poll up, finalize the rules, and then chose our settings. We could have a game running by next weekend.
You were smart in saying that you needed suggestions from other people to tweak the Factions ruleset :king:

If we are really going to get this game going again then we are going to need more than just croxis and I asking what you guys want. That will doom the game automatically regardless of ruleset.

The game hasn't even started yet, and bashing accusations are being passed around the table. Why? I have no idea. This game is still in pre-natal stages and it seems to me that most would rather argue an arbitrary point rather than focus and moving the game foward. Yes, we do need a basis for rules. Yet, having a fully formed ruleset, before ANYONE seems interested, defeats the point. I base this off the 10-12 votes in this topic.

When I saw that this game was starting up again, I believe my reaction fell between "whoopie" and "sweet". Now, three weeks later, my reaction has fallen between "yawn" and "ZzZzZzZ." All these arguements and posturing are wearing down my will to sit through all of this. I don't know if people agree with me, but I want to see the game ACTUALLY move from conceptual ideas to a concrete system. Yet, it seems we have neither the numbers or support to do so.

Strider, not to sound like an arse, but you two aren't the only people wanting this game to start. Nor are you the only people who actively formulating possible ways to start the game. We need to kill this partisan attitude before it drives possible demo gamers away. We need to advertise and find more players. We need a wholesale agreement on the basics of the game. Though I know this is all wishful thinking, lost in the fantasies of my imagination, I hope people will see past the inherent political poppycock of these early stages, and join this game. If not to see more activity in these forums, then to actually get this ball rolling.

Predicting attack post by Provo, blaming all ills on "Traditionalists" ...

Shattered - it's there, it will always be there. Certain people will not be able to post in this game with Provo and his cabal attacking. It makes for a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but it's there.

BTW - if you want to have fun, keep track of how many times Provo says he'll stop!

-- Ravensfire

The game hasn't even started yet, and bashing accusations are being passed around the table. Why? I have no idea. This game is still in pre-natal stages and it seems to me that most would rather argue an arbitrary point rather than focus and moving the game foward. Yes, we do need a basis for rules. Yet, having a fully formed ruleset, before ANYONE seems interested, defeats the point. I base this off the 10-12 votes in this topic.

When I saw that this game was starting up again, I believe my reaction fell between "whoopie" and "sweet". Now, three weeks later, my reaction has fallen between "yawn" and "ZzZzZzZ." All these arguements and posturing are wearing down my will to sit through all of this. I don't know if people agree with me, but I want to see the game ACTUALLY move from conceptual ideas to a concrete system. Yet, it seems we have neither the numbers or support to do so.

Strider, not to sound like an arse, but you two aren't the only people wanting this game to start. Nor are you the only people who actively formulating possible ways to start the game. We need to kill this partisan attitude before it drives possible demo gamers away. We need to advertise and find more players. We need a wholesale agreement on the basics of the game. Though I know this is all wishful thinking, lost in the fantasies of my imagination, I hope people will see past the inherent political poppycock of these early stages, and join this game. If not to see more activity in these forums, then to actually get this ball rolling.

Please realize that though I support your system, I am kinda put off by your negativity.

Once again I find myself merely defending. It is, once again, frustrating trying to get people to do something and only receive negativity in regards to it. I wanted to get the game going with absolutely no ruleset a month ago. That was shot down. I have written a main page announcement, I've actively campaigned in the chatroom, I've bugged every moderator for several things. I AM TRYING

I have neither the will nor interest in arguing with you. Even more so when you can argue against yourself.

I've also found the lack of initiative from anyone other than myself, Provo, or croxis rather frustrating.

I was delighted when dutchfire pinpointed the cause that had alluded me; we lacked initiative.
I'd be willing to take the initiative into the Demogame if there weren't any attack posts against the "traditionalists". Which, IMO and not to sound like a bum, makes for an unpleasant experience.

If one is willing to convince that their idea (in this case for example the Fraction based rule set) is a good idea. It's better to give a convincing argument that would make the person more inclined to agree and side with that idea. Attacking the individual (Ad hominem in this case) is NOT a good way to gain support to an idea and will turn people off. It's best to avoid any ad hominems if you wish to convince the traditionalists that eather the Fraction based or Civic Based ruleset is better than the Traditional ruleset.

Strider:

I do appreicate the work you are doing to get the game up and running, also you have got to remember that some of us have less time than you, and some of us (like me!) can't come up with any major good ideas. When i pose a question about the faction system (or any other system) i am not saying i don't like it, i am just merely trying to get over any possible hurdles that might come up with the adpotion of a ruleset.

also there are three rulesets out there, and there isn't really any room for any other rulesets without taking bits from rulesets already proposed so the room for new idea's is limited. Plus with your faction system, we only have to agree on the overall game rules, not laws as they will be made when we spilt into factions.

I'd be willing to take the initiative into the Demogame if there weren't any attack posts against the "traditionalists". Which, IMO and not to sound like a bum, makes for an unpleasant experience.

If one is willing to convince that their idea (in this case for example the Fraction based rule set) is a good idea. It's better to give a convincing argument that would make the person more inclined to agree and side with that idea. Attacking the individual (Ad hominem in this case) is NOT a good way to gain support to an idea and will turn people off. It's best to avoid any ad hominems if you wish to convince the traditionalists that eather the Fraction based or Civic Based ruleset is better than the Traditional ruleset.

Believe us, we have tried. I am sorry for the last week attacks, and regret that. However, we have written numerous pages on our proposals, to no avail. If you traditionalists would like to propose a compromise, please do so, and we will listen to it. But you can safely assume we are not interested in the main traditional outline, and yes, since this is Civ4 BTS, we would like a new ruleset actually capturing the spirit of the new game, which is in many ways very different from Civ3 C. Yes, many of the Traditionalists have asked for a Civ3 C game, which makes me wonder if they are serious about a Civ4 BTS demogame at all. I know a stall tactic when I see one.

Joe, your questions about the ruleset are definitely appreciated and were in no means seen as a flat out negative. Questions mean a lack of clarity on the writers' part. It also helps us strengthen the proposal.

CivGeneral, there are three pages on the faction based ruleset in the official thread alone. In there, and elsewhere I have stated the strengths of the ruleset over the other two. I will do so again here.

1. It is the most simple. In the current version the faction based ruleset has about a quarter of the words as the last demo game constitution. It is also a bit less complicated than the civics based ruleset (which the faction one kinda grew from).

2. Better role play. Based on the why do you demogame poll, a lot of people voted politics and role playing. This system brings out additional layers for this to take place and with a more historical context.

3. Dynamic. The "constitution" will change much more rapidly. Oct pointed out that he doesn't think this will improve simplicity (this is a forest type comment). A valid concern which should be discussed. The complexity of the ruleset will fluctuate depending on our needs. It also throws a bit of evolution and natural selection into the mix.

4. Emergent. With a faction based system we will be able to try things that have never been done before. If it doesn't work, a new ruleset wouldn't be far away. In this method we may find a totally different way of doing things that is better than what has ever been done before. It may be so amazing we stick with it for the rest of the game.

In that thread almost the entire first page is just strider and myself bouncing around ideas. So far the debate has rested on line-by-line type elements in the proposal and not so much on the general theme itself. Individual points can remain - that is not the issue we are talking about here. What this thread is talking about is do we focus our energies working on a civics like ruleset, a faction like ruleset, or working on a constitution. So far it seems that some people are confusing forests and trees. Talking about trees is important, but that will come after this poll.

I will be honest. I have tried to get into demo games in the past but never got into them. Until recently I haven't really figured out why. This (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml) article, while long, articulates it very nicely. It is a very interesting read none the less.

You are right. There is a core group trying to protect their "Lego-town", and they do not want other kids to play the way they want with their building pieces. This is what traditional vs. faction is all about. Faction-based allows the game to totally renovate itself from Faction election to Faction election, as a new Faction can decide to toss out an existing ruleset and replace that with a new one, without the cumbersome constitution, judicial and forced guideline procedures we have seen so far.

New initiatives are presented as hopeless, naive, poorly planned etc etc. whereas Traditional is sacred, and not subject to replacement. This is what Legotown is all about, a core group that would like to preserve their playing habitat, with no change at all, and negotiate further metagame structures on top of that. Let us raze legotown for every election, so that the new will of the people will be the new law every time.

Provo - here's something to consider that evidently you haven't. Some people (and yes, I am one of them), LIKE a traditional ruleset. We like the predictability, the stability and the simplicity of it. Why should WE present a compromise? Where is the compromise from your cabal of neo-radicalists?

-- Ravensfire

There is no real predictability, stability or simplicity of it. Numerous cases have shown that. Referring to as as "your cabal of neo-radicalists" is very simple, as we all want a change for various reasons. From what I know, the Judiciary as it has been in "Traditional" rulesets, the prime
source of exploitation of the demo-game, by a recurring cast of players abusing the peoples and officials power in order to overrule in-game processes. Also, I do not expect a presented compromise from the Tradionalists, since a singular change from the traditionalists in the direction of civics, would represent a non-traditional outcome. However, it seems that the bulk of the support for traditional belongs in the C3C realm, where it rightfully belongs. I suggest the Traditionalists set up a separate C3C Tradtional Demogame, and let those of us who wants a new, fresh and more inspiring game within Civ4BTS, simply go free, and not keep us hostage anymore.

Provo - ease off the paranoia there, buddy! Put the tin foil hat aside, and stop looking for the black helicopters. Has ANYONE kept the neo-rad cabal hostage? I think not.

You've got twisted, warped viewpoint that honest disagreement means an attack. I'm not sure where that comes from (of course, weeding through your psuedo-intellictual garbage probably should be used by the CIA as an interrogation technicque), but you really need to drop it. NOBODY has "kept you hostage" on this - point to me a single post where that has happened. Indeed, the person that has tried to keep an idea off the table is YOU. Your continued personal attacks on a group of that have the affront to (gasp!) disagree with your preference (oh, the horror!) has had a noticeable impact on people.

You know - I'm quite tired of that. Congratulations, Provo, you've essentially created exactly what you've been calling me. I will now be the thorn in your side. I will adopt the exact tactics you've been using for years now, continually whining, complaining, sniping and showing outright hostility to any idea that I don't like.

I think I'm going to enjoy this, Provo. The neo-rad cabal has an utterly unworkable idea that's still shrouded in vague concepts and destined to collapse under its own weight.

Thank you, Provo, I'm going to enjoy bashing your idea around, and will crow with delight, as you have done, when it collapses and devolves into nothingness.

-- Ravensfire

General warning - let's play nice and stop bickering with each other.

This post should really have gone here, instead of the faction based rules thread, so here it is :).

Having recently decided to join the game, i read through the rulesets and i have to say, i definately like the faction based rules better.

As an outsider, the traditional rules seem way to complicated, i even had a hard time following them and reading them. If i didn't have friends playing already, and the traditional ruleset was chosen, i don't know if i would play, because i doubt i could follow the rules that easily.

The faction based rules seem fun, there's a heavy role playing aspect. It allows for more ease of play, to me i'd think it would make the game seem less of a chore and more fun, which it should be, no?

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

logic

Provo - ease off the paranoia there, buddy! Put the tin foil hat aside, and stop looking for the black helicopters. Has ANYONE kept the neo-rad cabal hostage? I think not.

You've got twisted, warped viewpoint that honest disagreement means an attack. I'm not sure where that comes from (of course, weeding through your psuedo-intellictual garbage probably should be used by the CIA as an interrogation technicque), but you really need to drop it. NOBODY has "kept you hostage" on this - point to me a single post where that has happened. Indeed, the person that has tried to keep an idea off the table is YOU. Your continued personal attacks on a group of that have the affront to (gasp!) disagree with your preference (oh, the horror!) has had a noticeable impact on people.

You know - I'm quite tired of that. Congratulations, Provo, you've essentially created exactly what you've been calling me. I will now be the thorn in your side. I will adopt the exact tactics you've been using for years now, continually whining, complaining, sniping and showing outright hostility to any idea that I don't like.

I think I'm going to enjoy this, Provo. The neo-rad cabal has an utterly unworkable idea that's still shrouded in vague concepts and destined to collapse under its own weight.

Thank you, Provo, I'm going to enjoy bashing your idea around, and will crow with delight, as you have done, when it collapses and devolves into nothingness.

-- Ravensfire

You have always been like this, but thanks for the declaration here, it is clarifying for outsiders how you operate. People can read other threads, compare notes, and figure out which side has been constructive or not. After this, we will work with the new ruleset, which will not be traditional, at all. We are not quite certain of what it exactly will be, but it will not be traditional.

You will be welcome as a constructive force, and we hope you will add to this game, without bringing forth another iteration of the famed "Judiciary".

Also, I do not expect a presented compromise from the Tradionalists, since a singular change from the traditionalists in the direction of civics, would represent a non-traditional outcome.

After this, we will work with the new ruleset, which will not be traditional, at all. We are not quite certain of what it exactly will be, but it will not be traditional.

So its only the traditionalists who are not interested in compromise? You say traditionalists aren't contributing a compromise but then in the same thread you say the rule set won't be traditional "at all", so why should traditionalists try and compromise?

So its only the traditionalists who are not interested in compromise? You say traditionalists aren't contributing a compromise but then in the same thread you say the rule set won't be traditional "at all", so why should traditionalists try and compromise?

True, which is why I suggested a separate C3C demogame for the traditionalists, because C3C got no Civics at all.

With all this vendetta and junk going around that would give the traditionalists a bad name :shake:. I might have to look into the Fraction based ruleset instead of the Traditional based and voice my support for the Fraction based. I just dislike being associated with a group that has a bad rep.

True, which is why I suggested a separate C3C demogame for the traditionalists, because C3C got no Civics at all.
However, the Single Player Civilization 3 Demogame (C3C being the latest version) has been dead for a while now, the only thing going on there is a Civ3 Multi-team and/or Multi-site Demogame. Plus I have a feeling that some traditionalists would want to play Civ4 instead of C3C.

You have always been like this, but thanks for the declaration here, it is clarifying for outsiders how you operate. People can read other threads, compare notes, and figure out which side has been constructive or not. After this, we will work with the new ruleset, which will not be traditional, at all. We are not quite certain of what it exactly will be, but it will not be traditional.

You will be welcome as a constructive force, and we hope you will add to this game, without bringing forth another iteration of the famed "Judiciary".
Any time, Provo! It will be difficult to stoop to your low, but as the inactivity by the Mods have blessed your attacks, I shall enjoy pulling aside the curtains, and shining the light of truth on the boondoggle called the "Faction Ruleset".

You are correct, of course, people can go back and read other threads. I'm surprised you would suggest that, however, as history is not kind towards you.

-- Ravensfire

With all this vendetta and junk going around that would give the traditionalists a bad name :shake:. I might have to look into the Fraction based ruleset instead of the Traditional based and voice my support for the Fraction based. I just dislike being associated with a group that has a bad rep.
Ah, relax, CG, that's been going on for a long time. Provo's been on a witch hunt for years.

There's definite promise in the concept of Factions, the current proposal leave too much hidden, is missing too much and the supporters aren't addressing the issues, just attacking anyone that might be against it. That's a really bad way to create a solid ruleset that will be supported by the citizens.

-- Ravensfire

So its only the traditionalists who are not interested in compromise? You say traditionalists aren't contributing a compromise but then in the same thread you say the rule set won't be traditional "at all", so why should traditionalists try and compromise?

Shhh - if you keep pointing that out, people will realize the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes!

And you know what happens when the neo-rad attack squads go after you ...

:spank:

-- Ravensfire

Can we actually have productive conversation? Please?

I look forward to get up the new forum, so we can leave the traditional concept behind and look forward to structuring a proper ruleset within the Civ4 BTS habitat, and rethink the game around the new game mechanisms that necessitates a redo around civics. Some people recognize, some don't, I have written lengthy proposals on this, and there seems to be enough support for a Faction based version of the civic one. I recognize that the original proposal was not good or simple enough, but also thank Strider and others for
processing this forwards.

On another note.

I am not the one referring to Ravensfire all the time, he is referring to my nick 10 times for every time I refer to his. Obviously, I represent a threat to his Judicial universe (did we ever see him roleplay, take other positions than Judiciary positions or constitution writing positions?). I will do mine to make this conflict end, but "traditionalism" as a concept is on its way out, as much as C3C is not on my harddrive anymore.

Tsk, tsk, Provo - no need to hide behind your own twisted, psuedo-intellectual posting.

Odd though - you seem to be the one fascinated with the Judiciary of late. I don't quite recall bringing that up. Hmmm, I wonder why ...

-- Ravensfire

Tsk, tsk, Provo - no need to hide behind your own twisted, psuedo-intellectual posting.

Odd though - you seem to be the one fascinated with the Judiciary of late. I don't quite recall bringing that up. Hmmm, I wonder why ...

-- Ravensfire

Please define what is "twisted, psuedo-intellectual posting", and I will look into improving my language. However, I think I will not adopt your interjections "tsk tsk" and "sssh" and so on, a little bit too reptile sounds for my taste.

To the topic at hand - which ruleset do we focus on.

I'd like to discuss the "Traditional" ruleset, highlight it's major points and correct some of the misconceptions that have been raised.

The Traditional ruleset is called that because the core concept has been in place for quite a while. It's never been the same as the previous game, however, as each version has been different from the previous. Both of the Civ 4 games have seen very different rulesets both from each other and from the Civ 3 games.

The basic design behind the current version of the traditional ruleset is actually the basis of the faction ruleset - place the core rules in one document, and the rules about the government in another document. The current faction proposal is following in the footsteps of the traditional format.

The traditional ruleset tries to cover all of the major concepts up front, in a size that reflects the initial size of our nation - small, but growing! As the nation grows, it allows for changes in the government, or even an entirely new style of government if the people want!

The traditional style is setup to be clear and up front about how to play the game - the basic concepts won't change and cover the core concepts behind the most important aspects of any Demogame - decision making, playing the Civ4 game and elections. It also explains how to change the rules.

Ultimately, the DG is what you make of it. We've had games succeed and fail where the rules were close to each other. The rules are there merely as a framework for YOU to play. Roleplaying does not, and cannot, come from the rules. These rules just keep the play focused and balanced.

If you've got any questions on the concepts of a Traditional ruleset, please ask.

-- Ravensfire

The main difference from factions to traditional is the following:

Each game plays out different from time to time, and rules get obsolete very fast. This is in particular true with civics, which was not properly incorporated in the two last Civ4 demogames as a major change in the game. This is where roleplay meets gameplay. Faction-based wants to have civics integral to government elections, not as a separate poll placed arbitrarily within a traditional month term. Whenever a regime changes, like history, the structure of the regime change as well, with loyalists of the new regime in place.

A traditional setup merely have elections per month, where everyone can run for all posts, even shop around and trade individual favors. Faction based focus more on the competition between ideas, not random individuals. Most civilizations have gone through these changes, and faction-based is more true to the core idea of civilization, the formation of a society based on the struggle between factions, not a bureaucratic procedure driven by rulemakers and verbal police.

Like Chieftess before me, I am giving you all a general warning to stop the bickering. Some members have earned themselves personal warnings or infractions already now.

See this ???

http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/buttons/report.gif

It's the "report button" and should be used when you need a moderator.
Assumed "inactivity by the Mods" can be cured that way. use it and you won't feel the need for a carteblanche to take matters into your own hands.

I am happy with "Factions" winning this poll, so we can look forward to a Civ BTS based forum with a framework actually fitting the game, not the metagame only. With Civgeneral changing to Faction, the difference is now 7-4, for Factions.

Like Chieftess before me, I am giving you all a general warning to stop the bickering. Some members have earned themselves personal warnings or infractions already now.

See this ???

http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/buttons/report.gif

It's the "report button" and should be used when you need a moderator.
Assumed "inactivity by the Mods" can be cured that way. use it and you won't feel the need for a carteblanche to take matters into your own hands.

Thank you, I almost forgot about that report button, but I will sure make use of it from now on, and not take matters in my own hands.

Faction-based allows the game to totally renovate itself from Faction election to Faction election, as a new Faction can decide to toss out an existing ruleset and replace that with a new one, without the cumbersome constitution, judicial and forced guideline procedures we have seen so far.


This makes more sense to me than any other other arguement I've read so far. The old system, albeit stable, was far too dull in the political area. To have groups, rather than individuals, control national policy and the like would greatly improve the game. If a faction was promising a plan that was similar to your individual ideas, you would join that faction. Therefor, if said faction was elected, or controlled some part of the government, you would have more of a say in the game itself. I see this as a much better format than multi-choice polls with overgeneralized choices. Voting on city names and the status of abstain (ZzZ) was both boring and uninvolving. With the old system I didn't feel like I affected anything, which drove me from the game.

The faction system just rings true to the style I would like to see this game take. We would have more interested and involved players if they felt that what they said and did actually had an impact. True, it does need some work. But thats nothing that can't be fleshed out soon. Hopefully, a resolution will be reached soon, so we can start this darn thing. :)

A traditional setup merely have elections per month, where everyone can run for all posts, even shop around and trade individual favors. Faction based focus more on the competition between ideas, not random individuals. Most civilizations have gone through these changes, and faction-based is more true to the core idea of civilization, the formation of a society based on the struggle between factions, not a bureaucratic procedure driven by rulemakers and verbal police.

Man I wish I saw this before my last post. :P That put aside, I give you all my kudos Provolution. Competition between ideas, instead of individuals, would be the greatest idea to focus on for a demogame. People would no longer need to vote for the person with the most archetypical and analytical view of the nation, which in my expirience, is all who ever ran for control. Individuals who can quote law and rules on a whim shouldn't be the only ones in control. Instead, have a group of people in control, all with the same general idea, but with their different takes on the game. You could have the ravensfire of your group control the laws and regulations of your faction. You could have the other people control what aspect they like best. The greatest thing about this is it allows groups of players, instead of individuals, be directly involved in the politics, unlike the last game, where the rule quoters dominated all. Traditionalism seems backwards to me. Every point made by the factionalists seems to make more sense than the points of the traditionalists. Hopefully this will all hash out soon.

I see this as a much better format than multi-choice polls with overgeneralized choices. Voting on city names and the status of abstain (ZzZ) was both boring and uninvolving. With the old system I didn't feel like I affected anything, which drove me from the game.

Hear hear. The idea of Soren "Whatwashisname", designer of Civ4, was to remove unfun elements from Civ3. Now is the time to remove unfun elements from Civ3-based demogames, and get something in line with Civ4 BTS.

The faction system just rings true to the style I would like to see this game take. We would have more interested and involved players if they felt that what they said and did actually had an impact. True, it does need some work. But thats nothing that can't be fleshed out soon. Hopefully, a resolution will be reached soon, so we can start this darn thing. :)

Resolution is imminent, and yes, more involvement and interest is overdue.

Competition between ideas, instead of individuals, would be the greatest idea to focus on for a demogame. People would no longer need to vote for the person with the most archetypical and analytical view of the nation, which in my expirience, is all who ever ran for control. Individuals who can quote law and rules on a whim shouldn't be the only ones in control.

Hear hear. This was the main problem, and could also be if we go in downtrodden paths. If we allow ourselves to be subject to "expert rule" by a handful that would rather refer to Demogame 1-7 + Civ4 DG 1+2 and ruin our journey of discovery, the game would surely be more bland, technical, procedure-driven - and our scope of action would be so limited, that a single-player game would feel more liberating.


Instead, have a group of people in control, all with the same general idea, but with their different takes on the game. You could have the ravensfire of your group control the laws and regulations of your faction. You could have the other people control what aspect they like best. The greatest thing about this is it allows groups of players, instead of individuals, be directly involved in the politics, unlike the last game, where the rule quoters dominated all.

This is what this poll is all about, and can explain part of the tension, as we have fundamentally different game-philosophies colliding. Factions would have less of what we have seen so far, and more of what you point out.

Traditionalism seems backwards to me. Every point made by the factionalists seems to make more sense than the points of the traditionalists. Hopefully this will all hash out soon.

As soon as the poll closes, a new forum is to be set up, for Faction based (i hope).

Personally I still like the "traditional" ruleset because it's nice and easy to understand, the ruleset doesn't change throughout the game, it the one i understand the most, yes i have read and understood the other proposals but i am still not sure how it will work in a group environment, at least we do know roughly how the traditional ruleset will work.

Provo, remember that if we voted for a traditional we would (i hope) come up with a entirely new set of rules to the last game (at least change the things that went wrong), so it's not so traditional as you may think, as it could be a completely new ruleset Also with the faction system, we could end voting for a traditional ruleset anyway! :p.

Alright it doesn't change with the civics but that is something i can live with and i if you wanted civics to have a bearing on the government structure, why not have a set setup for each government civic (ie have a king and a ruleset adpoted for monarchy and another for Representation).

I like the other proposals as well and i wouldn't mind at all if one of them was adpoted so I will play and take part in the demogame when we get this episode over and done with but i feel that i should vote for the "traditional" verison of rulesets.


And please don't call me a traditionist, because i will play no matter what we decide :)

Provo, remember that if we voted for a traditional we would (i hope) come up with a entirely new set of rules to the last game (at least change the things that went wrong), so it's not so traditional as you may think, as it could be a completely new ruleset Also with the faction system, we could end voting for a traditional ruleset anyway! :p.

That's the beauty of the faction system. If somehow people who support a traditionalist style of play take control of the nation, then they can implement their constitutions and stable(boring) gameplay mechanics. At least untill a different faction takes control from them. This faction could set up a democratic election system based on the last demo-game if such suited their fancies. But only as long as they held the public opinion and power in their grasp. That's the awesome thing about this new system, it allows people to be creative, working within their faction to create new ways to play. Unlike the old system, which only allows you to play in a structured unchanging, unflinching, stale beauracracy. I would like to see unlimited flexibility, not mind numbing rule worshiping.

That's the beauty of the faction system. If somehow people who support a traditionalist style of play take control of the nation, then they can implement their constitutions and stable(boring) gameplay mechanics. At least untill a different faction takes control from them. This faction could set up a democratic election system based on the last demo-game if such suited their fancies. But only as long as they held the public opinion and power in their grasp. That's the awesome thing about this new system, it allows people to be creative, working within their faction to create new ways to play. Unlike the old system, which only allows you to play in a structured unchanging, unflinching, stale beauracracy. I would like to see unlimited flexibility, not mind numbing rule worshiping.

Hear hear. This is exactly what Faction does. My original civic-proposal was "the structured unchanging, unflinching, stale bureaucracy" of civics, and as bad as the traditional one, in that it imposed a sort of expert rule on top of unwitting players being thrown into it. With factions, thanks to the ones of you that developed that on top of my stale civics proposal, every player can have a fair chance of impacting the game at any stage, without being referred back to ancient demogames in the archives and without being patronized without being able to come with a counter-proposal. Throw out the 6000 year constitution which would require 2/3 majority to change, allowing a handful to dictate how the rest of the game would develop.

I am happy you voted Traditional with the perspective you had Joe Harker, which means you got a flexible mind. And who knows, maybe you can make Traditional a Faction in itself, all you need is good internal organization, and to choose a select civic choice strategy.

What happens if its a draw? :p

*sigh*


---long pause---

Then I guess we get the wonder and joy of waiting even longer for this game to start up.

It is 7-5 right now, as CG switched. With a draw, Faction-based would be more fair, since Traditional would fit in as a constitutional option.

It is 7-5 right now, as CG switched. With a draw, Faction-based would be more fair, since Traditional would fit in as a constitutional option.

LogicSequence can't vote yet (group membership), but stated faction support. So that is 7-6. CG will have to get his vote changed over.

The stupid group membership is more difficult than it's worth.

LogicSequence can't vote yet (group membership), but stated faction support. So that is 7-6. CG will have to get his vote changed over.

The stupid group membership is more difficult than it's worth.

I think he wrote for a vote change above.

It is faction based then, with at least 7-6, possibly also 8-5 with CG changing over. Now I think it is high time to get a fresh forum, so we can agree on what Faction-based should be in a more detailed way.

It is faction based then, with at least 7-6, possibly also 8-5 with CG changing over. Now I think it is high time to get a fresh forum, so we can agree on what Faction-based should be in a more detailed way.
Seconded. Remember that if this system fails (which it might), we can always scrap the game and start a new one. We should get moving though, and it would great if everyone would give this a try.

Seconded. Remember that if this system fails (which it might), we can always scrap the game and start a new one. We should get moving though, and it would great if everyone would give this a try.

*Calculates chance of failure*
100-x
0<x<100

:lol:

Seriously though it seems that the failure will come from the people and not the system ;)

The poll closed? I had figured it would be one of those open ended things, so didn't vote yet. :wallbash:

I vote faction, on the grounds that it will be better to proceed with what the active people are proposing.

Strider did say the poll was only open for four days ;)

All rite, good to have DS aboard , he is one of the players that build bridges, and would be great towards making this ruleset work better.
There will still be several game rules, such as playing the save etc. Daveshack was one of the men behind the DP institute, which I personally would like to keep.