This is part 1 of a two part question.

Should there be limitations on which factions can submit government proposals? Specifically, should there be any minimum level of support?

Yes - Yes, there should be some level of support
No - No, there should be no limitations
Abstain - I don't care

Please also vote in the second poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=265465), asking the question of if there is a minimum level of support, what should it be. Please vote in both polls!

The poll option with the most votes shall direct our course.

Link to discussion thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=265341)

-- Ravensfire

Blast - copy/paste error.

If possible, could a moderator please change the question to: Should there be limitations on which factions can submit government proposals?

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

No.

Quite simply, the worth of an idea should be weighed by its merits, not by the amount of support is has prior to consideration. Our system is not harmed in any way by allowing any faction to submit an idea. Indeed, it is strengthened by allowing a new member to make a proposal, and convince others that the idea has merit and should be chosen.

The idea that "you must have support first!" is simply elitist.

-- Ravensfire

Yes, there must be a certain level of support before a faction can vie for government control. This is to prevent "Faction Spam," that is, silly one-person factions cluttering elections up. If a faction idea is solid, it WILL get support, I don't foresee that being a problem.

Yes, there must be a certain level of support before a faction can vie for government control. This is to prevent "Faction Spam," that is, silly one-person factions cluttering elections up. If a faction idea is solid, it WILL get support, I don't foresee that being a problem.

I totally agree with you here, Al Knight. I couldn't have stated it better than that. :)

Moderator:

Sorry, I voted on the wrong, it should read as "Yes" not "No". I mean there should be restriction for a Faction proposal, so at least it covers some mimimum, and to let new players know that there must a good standard for running for a government. If they never got to know what it takes, this game is going to be for the insiders only, so we need to make it explicit.

After 5 votes, it should read as 3 yes, 1 no and 1 abstain.

Done - Dave (4 yes, 5 no, 1 abstain at this point)

No, as per the reasons stated by Ravensfire.

What will happen if we have one faction with enough members and all the rest fall short, but people can't switch? Then that one faction automatically wins by exclusion of the others?

Better to avoid that whole can of worms by just letting the voters figure it out, instead of an unnecessary rule.

The real can of worms is in not making sure that a faction got positions, candidates for these positions, mandates for these positions and organization of these positions. At the minimum, we need to inform the players on the importance of these, and not hope for the best. Expert rule in this game comes around by keeping secret about prerequisites that are already there. We need to get these into the open, and the best way to do this, is by having these points as a minimum. However, we can also have this in a FAQ on how to set up a good faction.

You're assuming all positions must be filled from within the faction, but there is also the coalition model where some positions are filled from other factions, or even independents, to obtain a bigger vote than that faction's membership alone.

There may be coalitions of course, I did not deny that. All I say, is that each Faction Platform must present how they want to do it, Coalition or not. There may even be a Faction Coalition proposal where 3-4 Factions go together for setting up a government. However, this will be more true to "Representation Civic", as Despotism and Hereditary Rule is another deal.

If increased role play is one of the major goals of this Demo Game, why would we want to do anything to stifle anyone's imagination? I don't think a one-person faction is all that likely to win many elections, but there are always important loyal opposition roles to be played (for film buffs think of the filibuster in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington).

Why don't we just see what the game brings us before we make too complex a ruleset? If one-person factions are perceived by the DG community to be a bad thing, any that are formed will likely die a quick death.

We got guilds to handle these solo appearances, Factions serve a role in the core rules in fulfilling a candidacy for running the gameplay-side of it, and to implement the policies people voted the faction in for. There are plenty of opportunity for roleplay, without tampering with the integrity of the election system. The imagination will not be tampered with, as the election would not be tampered with.

We got guilds to handle these solo appearances, Factions serve a role in the core rules in fulfilling a candidacy for running the gameplay-side of it, and to implement the policies people voted the faction in for. There are plenty of opportunity for roleplay, without tampering with the integrity of the election system. The imagination will not be tampered with, as the election would not be tampered with.

Guilds aren’t political; factions are. Let’s say at the beginning of the game I’m passionate about wanting to establish Universal Suffrage. It’s going to be thousands of game years before this is possible. Still, I want to start a faction devoted to this ideal. I do so with the hope of persuading my fellow citizens to follow a research path that will enable us to enter the blissful state of Universal Suffrage as quickly as possible. I also intend to use those thousands of years to fully develop all of the bells and whistles of my faction, including its ruleset.

Now, at the beginning of the game no one will likely want to join my factions. Why would they? It’s not going to be voted into power because there’s no possible way I can adopt my core civic, and thus there won’t be any nice political offices for members of my faction to enjoy. However, as the game progresses and the likelihood that we soon might be able to enact the Universal Suffrage civic become probable, more people may want to join my faction. What started as a faction of one – virtually by necessity – may then become a faction that many more people want to join.

I have no interest in starting a faction or in holding office. But if I did, why couldn’t I start my faction on day 1 of the Demo Game? Why must I wait thousands to years before I could do so?

You can still form an election Bertie, but you need 3 people to run for government. This means, anyone can form a faction, down to one person, but you need three people to run for government.

So far, this poll result would mean you don't need three people to run for government.

Well, the other poll has stated 3 as a minimum, so dont confuse the nature of these two polls. I do not like to feel betrayed and hijacked in this manner. There were two polls on the matter, both posted by Ravensfire, who got a clear interest in the manner. I will respect the outcome of this poll, as long as the other poll is respected as well.

Well, the other poll has stated 3 as a minimum, so dont confuse the nature of these two polls. I do not like to feel betrayed and hijacked in this manner. There were two polls on the matter, both posted by Ravensfire, who got a clear interest in the manner. I will respect the outcome of this poll, as long as the other poll is respected as well.

Provo, kindly read the polls again. You will clearly be able to understand the purpose of running two polls.

-- Ravensfire

This is the first two-tier poll I have seen from you in ages , Ravensfire. But you need to consider the need for some guidelines for setting up a government proposal, how do you want to go about that?

I haven't needed to set up such a poll in ages.

For your second question, see the proposal I've already posted.

-- Ravensfire

I haven't needed to set up such a poll in ages.

For your second question, see the proposal I've already posted.

-- Ravensfire

I see, so the poll was rigged this way for a desired outcome?

I voted in the other poll on the reading that it would only count if "Yes" won this poll.

I see, so the poll was rigged this way for a desired outcome?
How is it rigged exactly? If a majority of people vote "No" in this poll the other poll doesn't count, which was the idea behind the 2 polls.

Exactly, that is the point, there was a definite idea behind these two polls, it was organized this way for a purpose.

I dont see a problem with the polling method. Sure the second poll could of waited to be posted until this one had finished, but if the vote is yes, we go to the second poll's results, if this poll's result comes out to be no, then the second poll is not needed. The second poll states:
This is part 2 of a two part question.

If we decide to require a minimum level of support for a faction to submit a government proposal, what is that minimum level?
...
Please also vote in the first poll, asking the question of if there should be a minimum level of support. Please vote in both polls!

As I said, the issues were bundled in this way, to remove all support needed to make some minimum requirements. But sure, remake this game traditional, so we are done with it.

As I said, the issues were bundled in this way, to remove all support needed to make some minimum requirements. But sure, remake this game traditional, so we are done with it.
I don't understand this. If there is a majority of support for requiring a level of support why wouldn't that majority vote yes in this poll? I don't see how this poll removed all of its support...

:lol: Provo - you really need to think that through better.

Consider two groups - 1 wanting no minimum level, the other wanting some minimum level. If there was a single poll posted, asking what the minimum level was, and listing 1, 2, 3, 5%, Other and Abstain, which group is put at a disadvantage? That's right, the group wanting a minimum level. See, they'd be divided on WHAT that minimum level was, where the group that doesn't want a minimum level wouldn't be.

So if anything, polling in this manner was to YOUR groups benefit, and yet you're here complaining about it. :rolleyes:

This question truly is a two parter - should there be a minimum level, and what is that minimum level. By separating into two questions, you get the best view of what people prefer AND you do it in the shortest possible time. I really don't get your complaining about this, except that you just don't like the fact that I posted it, and posted it fairly. :shrug:

-- Ravensfire

I don't understand this. If there is a majority of support for requiring a level of support why wouldn't that majority vote yes in this poll? I don't see how this poll removed all of its support...

It is plain and obvious for all to see, but plausible deniability is also a legitimate perspective.

:lol: Provo - you really need to think that through better.

Consider two groups - 1 wanting no minimum level, the other wanting some minimum level. If there was a single poll posted, asking what the minimum level was, and listing 1, 2, 3, 5%, Other and Abstain, which group is put at a disadvantage? That's right, the group wanting a minimum level. See, they'd be divided on WHAT that minimum level was, where the group that doesn't want a minimum level wouldn't be.

So if anything, polling in this manner was to YOUR groups benefit, and yet you're here complaining about it. :rolleyes:

This question truly is a two parter - should there be a minimum level, and what is that minimum level. By separating into two questions, you get the best view of what people prefer AND you do it in the shortest possible time. I really don't get your complaining about this, except that you just don't like the fact that I posted it, and posted it fairly. :shrug:

-- Ravensfire

Yeah, since you got the moderator, Strider and Croxis to back you guys up, I am not arguing this any further.

I voted yes for the following reasons:


Factions are meant to be a massive group of people (A church, Nobility, cult, etc.)
The ruleset was made with a focus on factions vying for power rather than individuals. Removing the limitation eliminates that aspect and thus ruins part of the purpose of the ruleset.
The only difference between Guilds and Factions is the number of supporters. This will eliminate THAT entire aspect of the ruleset.
The idea was, once again, to remove individual power and replace it with group power. You are rewarded for compromise, ideas, etc. instead of how loudly you can yell.
It is doubtful that one faction (at this point in the game) has enough people to run the game. That means they will be forced to compromise or fail miserably. Compromise is, again, the key word.

Yes, this poll was nothing but a Traditionalist countercoup, the voting pattern is obvious, so we can as well play Traditional from now on, now that they managed to ruin the Factional one. I am already installing M2TW on my harddrive, so have fun.

And you can thank your buddy Croxis for the voting, by the way.

EDIT: There is no difference between Faction and Guilds, except for that Guilds cannot go for election unless they name themselves a Faction. They basically made this game into a All-Empowered Designated Player Pool of Veterans and chosen newbees, or in more direct parlance, a traditional soup.

I vote faction

You place far too much emphasis on characterizing people as traditionalist or not. I'm in favor of factions, and would prefer to see a small number of powerful factions over many weak ones. But I'm not in favor of prohibiting small factions, nor in punishing them by denying them the chance to win an election by forming a coalition.

You place far too much emphasis on characterizing people as traditionalist or not. I'm in favor of factions, and would prefer to see a small number of powerful factions over many weak ones. But I'm not in favor of prohibiting small factions, nor in punishing them by denying them the chance to win an election by forming a coalition.

I know you are pro-Faction, but the main idea was to remove the advantage for more developed factions, so we are going to see small splinter groups for a long time, thanks to the outcome of this.

déjà vu

We've been here before, we've done this before, do we really need to go through exactly the same moves every other month? Maybe our concepts aren't flawed, maybe our people are.

As far as I see, I am the one at wrong here (I am the flawed one).

Provo, you need to take it easy. This one issue is not going to make or break this game. If the majority says no limitations, no limitations it is. I, personally, voted for limitations because I just think we're going to be faction-spammed, and forming coalitions sounds suspiciously like trying to get around the not being able to join multiple factions rule, but if this is what the majority wants, we will have an easier time following it.

No limitations, simply because there is no harm in allowing small factions take part, I doubt that we will end up with everyone being in small groups of factions, and anyway that could be quite good too, they could form coalitions and join together, so not only have you got the external struggle with other factions, you got internal struggle of getting your proposal enacted.

This poll is invalid. Submitting government proposals is up to the faction in control not individuals. If this poll is taken seriously it will be the end of factions, and if that happens, you can count me out.
I mean, come one, how can a poll be more misleading than this?

Shattered, what are you talking about? This is a poll seeing if factions must be a minimum size to attempt to be prime faction.

Shattered, what are you talking about? This is a poll seeing if factions must be a minimum size to attempt to be prime faction.

He's saying precisely what I said earlier. Rather than having a faction made up of several different people you have one person who makes up a faction. It basically screws the entire purpose of the faction ruleset up. Rather than focusing on the we it focus's on the I. That is, obviously, counter-productive to the entire system.

It will eliminate (or at least depreciate) the social changes that are needed to make the game successful. Whether that is on purpose or merely something that was not thought about I don't care to get into.

have one person who makes up a faction.


Doesn't that happen now?

Just because someone has not got anyone else's support doesn't mean they should get excluded from attempting to be a prime faction, it might be a really
good ruleset but people don't notice it at first but people come to vote and see it they may well switch sides. If there has to be a limit it has to be two, because three people will be too much, should and when numbers get low.

Doesn't that happen now?

The problem with last game was mostly lack of initiative. It's not that there wasn't any, but rather it came from only one or two people at one time and that just wasn't enough. In order for the game to be successful we need a method of garnering initiative from a group of people. Put simply; we need people in order to get people. A single faction can do a lot more than just run for government. They can operate mini-games, start narrative roleplays, etc. However, those things need people and factions will make an organized and accessible group.

For example, if I wanted to start the "gaming guild" where we host tournaments in the like who is most likely to support me? My brothers in the mysticism faction or some people who disagree with my every word elsewhere? Factions supply a meeting place for those with common goals and interests. Allowing one person factions takes away the entire social/roleplay/etc. element in favor of individual power. The entire proposal is looking far to much at how this will effect the government and not how it effects everything else.

Just because someone has not got anyone else's support doesn't mean they should get excluded from attempting to be a prime faction, it might be a really good ruleset but people don't notice it at first but people come to vote and see it they may well switch sides. If there has to be a limit it has to be two, because three people will be too much, should and when numbers get low.

If it is a good ruleset then it will likely garner support and either get adopted by an existing faction or make a new faction.

First of all, this poll is about minimum support needed to propose something, it is only assumed that this maintains only for elections. This poll is strictly misleading and undermining the system we voted on. Under no circumstances is there to be only one person in power. They need to have a minimum number of support to do anything, otherwise we'll see independants winning and appointing independants, and the system will fail. It will be the last demogame all over again.

This is also why I wanted to start as a single faction. If a mod could change my vote from No to Yes I would be happy.

One thing I think we are forgetting is that this isn't a computer game. There is nothing to prevent psudeo factions from existing that are smaller, they just arnt offically recognized by the ruleset. Small groups can still put out proposals to gather support, but they can't actually run until they do gather enough support.

Guilds can also provide a transition phase in the creation of new factions - they are organizations which exist outside the rules.

So, with Croxis changing votes, we have a tie (6 Yes, 6 No and 2 Abstain), I suggest to either have a repoll, or make Daveshack arbitrate a result as moderator.

And you are all correct about the faction as a group thing. If there is no 3 person limit for a faction, we have de-facto gotten ourselves back another traditional ruleset variation.

First of all, this poll is about minimum support needed to propose something, it is only assumed that this maintains only for elections. This poll is strictly misleading and undermining the system we voted on. Under no circumstances is there to be only one person in power. They need to have a minimum number of support to do anything, otherwise we'll see independants winning and appointing independants, and the system will fail. It will be the last demogame all over again.

Shattered, this poll is very specific about what it's about. Simply put, when we determine which faction will take control, those factions interested must post their government proposal. Nothing in this poll restricts, or has ever suggested that it restricts, what is in that proposal. This poll is simply asking if the Faction must have a certain number of members before that proposal can be on the list presented to us to choose from.

You're comment about only one person being in power isn't covered here and never was covered here. ANY faction could post a ruleset that says "Joe Snuffitelli is the supreme ruler. What he says goes." If enough people say they want that government, NOTHING we have will prevent that.

Nothing has been posted showing any harm that will come from allowing a single person that's interested enough to create their own proposal and put it out there. THAT'S roleplaying, and here we've got people that want to hammer that down, and tell them to cease, that they're just too small. They just need to join an existing faction, and work through the system.

I'm sorry, but that's just too restrictive for me. There is NO HARM from seeing what others might come up with. None. So let these small Faction post their rules. They might have enough good ideas that will get people to change their minds and vote for that proposal. So that big faction with paper support and a bad ruleset loses to a small, new faction with a cool concept - where's the problem?

-- Ravensfire

Nothing has been posted showing any harm that will come from allowing a single person that's interested enough to create their own proposal and put it out there. THAT'S roleplaying, and here we've got people that want to hammer that down, and tell them to cease, that they're just too small. They just need to join an existing faction, and work through the system.

I'm sorry, but that's just too restrictive for me. There is NO HARM from seeing what others might come up with. None. So let these small Faction post their rules. They might have enough good ideas that will get people to change their minds and vote for that proposal. So that big faction with paper support and a bad ruleset loses to a small, new faction with a cool concept - where's the problem?

The problem with last game was mostly lack of initiative. It's not that there wasn't any, but rather it came from only one or two people at one time and that just wasn't enough. In order for the game to be successful we need a method of garnering initiative from a group of people. Put simply; we need people in order to get people. A single faction can do a lot more than just run for government. They can operate mini-games, start narrative roleplays, etc. However, those things need people and factions will make an organized and accessible group.

For example, if I wanted to start the "gaming guild" where we host tournaments in the like who is most likely to support me? My brothers in the mysticism faction or some people who disagree with my every word elsewhere? Factions supply a meeting place for those with common goals and interests. Allowing one person factions takes away the entire social/roleplay/etc. element in favor of individual power. The entire proposal is looking far to much at how this will effect the government and not how it effects everything else.

Were not limiting the proposals, merely asking that you prove that your proposal has enough support. We want the ideas to come before the factions and not be just made up because someone wanted to go solo.

It will also eliminate some of this idiotic rule debate that people have complained about.

Nothing has been posted showing any harm that will come from allowing a single person that's interested enough to create their own proposal and put it out there. THAT'S roleplaying, and here we've got people that want to hammer that down, and tell them to cease, that they're just too small. They just need to join an existing faction, and work through the system.
I don't understand how implementing the three person rule prevents people from creating factions. YOU CAN STILL CREATE A FACTION. If your idea is not good, or doesn't garner any sort of support, what business do you have being in the election? If you can't get 3 people to join your faction, you don't stand a chance in the election.

3 members is not a lot; implementing this rule would not eliminate small factions.

Let's remember the most basic core rule which we have carried over into every previous DG since I've been here.




All citizens share the same fundamental rights, including but not limited to:
The Right to Assemble
The Right to Vote
The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office
The Right to Free Speech
The Right to Free Movement
The Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial
The Right to Presumption of Innocence unless proven guilty
The Right of Representation
These rights may be limited by CivFanatics Center Forum Rules, which take precedence at all times.

Placing a minimum faction population requirement is equivalent to saying:

The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office (ONLY IF you have enough friends)

The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office [B](ONLY IF you have enough friends)

No different from past demogames nor will it be any different if the limit is removed. Thus this argument is null and void.

You're confusing the right to win an election with the right to be eligible to be a candidate for election. Everyone should be eligible to be a candidate.

And yes, I understand what the faction idea is trying to do. I even agree with it -- but I don't agree with making it a rule.

You're confusing the right to win an election with the right to be eligible to be a candidate for election. Everyone should be eligible to be a candidate.

That, once again, completely destroys the entire premise of a faction-based system. Individuals do not run for elections unless the prime factions constitution allows for it.

Regardless the poll is tied. There will have to be a run-off.

I suggest to either have a repoll, or make Daveshack arbitrate a result as moderator.


Hmm, I'd think that once we founding folks decide what the initial rules are, that the people are going to have to ratify it -- right?

If any arbitration is ever needed, and I'm hoping it won't be, you'll probably see group action by all three of us.

Sounds like a repoll then, and I suggest a third moderator (RikMeleet) sets it up, as he is a true neutral, as he is not a player that voted in here. Sounds like a plan? Rik knows how to set up a neutrally structured and worded poll. This is a heavily disputed point, as it is a be or not to be for the six that voted yes.

Let's remember the most basic core rule which we have carried over into every previous DG since I've been here.




Placing a minimum faction population requirement is equivalent to saying:

The Right to be Eligible to hold Public Office (ONLY IF you have enough friends)


These Faction Members do not even have to be friends, they just need to support the same Faction Platform. This is not about the right to run for public office, but the core meaning of the right to assemble of lasting organizations. If properly done, factions represent a recruiting base for new players, since every new introduction to the game is biased, and the most fair thing to do, is to build up the player-base by allowing factions to grow by giving them a meaning beyond a simple one-man guild or one-man faction.

Everyone is entitled to form a faction, alone, but they should get two players to join it and support it, which I think is a small effort. If the presenter of the idea does not care about recruiting two new members to make his faction eligible, then the faction may not have popular support.

Strider and Shattered,

We can go round and round on this, seeing more drama from various people and the literary equivalent of a SCUD, and still not get very far very fast.

I'll switch my vote here, and all three of us switch our vote in the other poll to two members. It's splitting the difference, and gets the process moving.

Acceptable?

-- Ravensfire

Strider and Shattered,

We can go round and round on this, seeing more drama from various people and the literary equivalent of a SCUD, and still not get very far very fast.

I'll switch my vote here, and all three of us switch our vote in the other poll to two members. It's splitting the difference, and gets the process moving.

Acceptable?

Agreed. Two people in order for a faction to become a prime faction.

As per the compromise, please change my vote from No to Yes.

-- Ravensfire

Although I admire your will to compromise Ravensfire, I still don't think two is enough people to run for office. I propose a counter-compromise. How about allowing one person factions to exist, but not letting them run for office until they have at least 3 members. Also, one person factions can be appointed by the winning faction to participate in the government as a minister of some sort.

Respectfully, Shattered, that's not a compromise at all. The winning option for minimum support to propose a government was 3. I prefered 1. Split, that's 2.

EDIT: Sorry, was beating around some villains, and the 10 minute break became just 1.

Shattered, this poll is just looking at what it takes for a Faction to be listed in the Prime Faction poll - that's it. Factions need to put forward their government, we vote and the winner runs the country. I think that in the later part some of those proposals will have open elections, where anyone, regardless of faction, could run for an office. All this poll is about, however, is that initial election, and what it takes to get on that election. This poll was tied, and the other poll (which would take effect if this poll went in favor or minimum requirements) had 3 members winning. That's where I got my 2 from - split that difference.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire, I really admire your willingness to compromise. I would like to point out that even though a person may not be part of a faction, or cannot get enough support for his/her faction, if a faction is elected that holds elections itself (like a democracy/republic/etc.), then anyone will be able to run for office.

ravensfire, I really admire your willingness to compromise. I would like to point out that even though a person may not be part of a faction, or cannot get enough support for his/her faction, if a faction is elected that holds elections itself (like a democracy/republic/etc.), then anyone will be able to run for office.

If that is the nature of that Factions platform for observing Representation and Universal Suffrage. But hopefully, people would like to experiment with the "darker" civics, so we do not get an argumentative goody-goody game we use to have.

If that is the nature of that Factions platform for observing Representation and Universal Suffrage. But hopefully, people would like to experiment with the "darker" civics, so we do not get an argumentative goody-goody game we use to have.

Going from Representation to Police State for example, and taking away all the citizen rights and such because it is wartime :p

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

If it's bigger than 14 then where are they? :confused:
Just because everyone can vote in a society doesn't mean everyone does :sad:

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

The User Group doesn't help us in terms of membership. The primary reason why I've been saying get it removed for get some new forums.

The User Group doesn't help us in terms of membership. The primary reason why I've been saying get it removed for get some new forums.

He's talking about the amount of voters I think ;)

If it's bigger than 14 then where are they? :confused:


They haven't joined yet because we haven't launched the game. I'm hoping that many will join.

The User Group doesn't help us in terms of membership. The primary reason why I've been saying get it removed for get some new forums.

I asked for the new forums to be sans usergroup.

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

Ultimately, however, that has to happen though. Most people aren't interested in this stuff until it affects them, then they scream bloody murder.

Yup - this was close, and won't be the last close poll that has a dramatic impact. Most close polls are on those big issues. We've got ways to change the rules, so we make a decision, move on and if it gets to be a problem, we change the rules. Yes, those situations are usually stressful and we get to see the worst of people then, but that's part of a social simulation like this.

-- Ravensfire

To be honest, I don't think either this poll or the other one is decisive, back room deal or not. If the population is only 14 then the game has practically no chance of succeeding, and if it's 50 then these 14 shouldn't be deciding for the other 36.

Really, I don't see the problem. We are to renew the core rules at regular intervals, but those hypothetical 36 got no single right until they have registered and properly joined the game PLUS we are reforming the core rules every second term or so. So basically, they need to live through at least the first term with the rules we make here. If they want a rulechange, that will take place after Term 2 elections.

If they want to change the core rules, they can do it at any time. If they can't do that, then this is not a democracy game.

It is not a democracy game, it is a faction game. Anytime is not a valid argument, most societies do rule-changes at fixed intervals, at least the civilized ones. I think we should more emulate a Nation State, than a hippie collective, to be honest. Rules are there for predictability for the committed players, not just a random place people can walk in and rewrite the rules the next day. People can of course write proposals for rule changes, but changing metagame rules on a continuous basis would ruin the game for many of us.

We should respect new players views when a term has run its course and the next elections done with, not rewrite the groundrules before they have been tried at least once. There is too much work on rules already, no need to add more.

I asked for the new forums to be sans usergroup.

Alphawolf

Not that I disagree with this decision, I just think it might be risky.

It's there, and it's a risk, but that's happened just once in a long, long time. I'd rather take the risk and keep things simple for new players.

And if it happens, hopefully some people can try to tie that into the game. Could make some interesting stories and tales!

-- Ravensfire