During the coming weeks, we will be revisting our entire ruleset to make some much-needed changes. What is the best way to go about making those changes?

Start From Scratch - Build our ruleset from the ground up as our discussions progress.

Modify DG2 Three Books - Make needed changes to the DG2 ruleset while keeping the basic outline intact.

Add to DG3 Ruleset - Add to our existing Constitution as our discussions progress.

Other - if you have another idea that does not quite fit, please post below.


This poll will run for 48 hours.

Relevant Discussion

DG4 Ruleset: Modify Or From Scratch? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67042)

DG4 Govt: Permissive vs Restrictive framework (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66562)

The Three Books from DG2 lays a solid foundation for us to build our new ruleset. Since time is of the essence, it will be much easier to keep the same basic outline while we replace many parts of that ruleset with our new laws.

I voted to modify the Three Books. They will give us a very good, solid foundation for a new ruleset. We can then modify and add new laws as needed for the DG4 ruleset.

EDIT: Here are The Three Books (http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_fanatika.htm) for those who are not familiar with them.

I think our current Constitution will suffice for DGIV, but it would be up for amending a little as that's what people seem to be wanting to do.

I haven't been following the discussions, have no intention of digging deep into DG2, and am entirely sure that the really active players will come up with a workable rule system.

Abstain

Hey, at least I voted.

Modify the 3 Books. Personally, apart from a few loopholes and kinks, I feel the 3 Books are fine as they are.

I assume that in making changes to the ruleset we will make sure its editable for the addition of the nation name once we decide on the civ we will play in the new DG

btw i voted modifying the 3 books, bring back what worked

Other: Add or subtract as necessary. There's a workable framework that was already culled from DG2. If parts of it have been a problem during this game then modify or eliminate them. If things have proven to be lacking, add them.

Hey folks - just dropping in quickly. RL has significantly intruded on my fantasy world. Not fair!

I'm voting to start from scratch.

I've realized that the loose/defined framework discussion could not have accomplished what I was wanting from it. In fact, only looking at the finished product could that question be answered. It did, however, start a healthy debate on basic concepts of the demogame.

Any time you "modify" an existing system, you run into issues. First, there is the inherent "this is what's in here, sounds good to me!" that many people have. I'm not talking about the vocal minority, we obviously have no problem voicing our concerns!

Second, deciding both what to modify, and what other parts of the ruleset will be affected by that change. You can introduce possible conflicts without noticing it. With regards to determining the areas to change - how will that happen? What if some like the current process, and others don't? I'm guessing that we will have a poll for each area that might be changed BEFORE we actually try to change it? Seriously - that's about the best way to go. Identify an area to change, explain the reasons, then poll to see if the group agrees with the reason for the change.

Third, starting from scratch simplifies some matters. Yes, it does mean that we will be creating a 4th ruleset. So? If we're proposing to starting in January - we have more than enough time. Even if we start on Dec. 1, there is enough time to do this.

Fourth, starting from scratch removes any inertia from an old ruleset. I don't want to hear people whining in the game "that's not how we did it in <insert name of ruleset modified." We heard it enough in DG3. If we take an existing ruleset and modify it, there is an implicit mindset of "This is how these rules are - don't mess with the big stuff". Right or wrong, it's there. When you identify and state each area of concern, and discuss only that, you will build the core of the ruleset. Add the general structure and the fluff, and you're done.

Toss the old baggage away. There are basically two tracks of discussions. The first is the "theory" stuff - the structure of the rules. How to change the rules. Legal Instructions. You get the point. The second is the "practial" stuff - offices, duties, procedures, etc.

I think going with an existing ruleset is a mistake.

-- Ravensfire (hoping he has more time later)

I think that the reality is you can't create a completely new ruleset. No matter what, the framework of the new rules is going to come from what people know and what they know are the rule sets from the previous demogames.

DG1 took the rules from the CivII demogame and tweaked them.

DG2 took the rules from DG1 and greatly expanded them.

DG3 took the core rules from DG2 and got rid of the rest.

Which system worked best? In truth, they all worked just as well in practice. When people cooperated things worked. When there was discord things broke down.

My personal recomendation is to take the basic rules and approve them in a line item poll. That is, each item lives or dies on its own merit. That forms the bare bones. Add items as needed, again on a per item basis. Don't waste a lot of time on these as it really isn't critical.

The bulk of the time needs to be invested in discussing how to resolve conflicts. That's where the game gets hung up, not on the rules.

It looks like some of you are misinterpreting my definition of "modify" as it pertains to the DG2 ruleset. Perhaps that is my fault as I may not have conveyed the message properly.

The goal here would not be to bring forth a passage from DG2 and say"Keep it or change it." It would be to follow Ravensfire's current itinerary, after which we would insert the agreed-upon changes into the approprite sub-section. Out with the old, in with the new.

Should we still debate some of the triumphs of the DG2 ruleset? Most definitely. Should we choose to ignore its obsolete laws? Of course. But in the fabled Three Books a solid framework exists, and it would make the entire process much easier to keep the same outline than to re-invent the wheel.

.....starting from scratch removes any inertia from an old ruleset.

To answer Ravensfire's concerns with an example -- Will the shadow of the Three Books loom large over those who wish to pare our cabinet down from 6 members to 4? Quite possibly, but those who are familiar with our current cabinet structure are well aware of this anyway. As Fionn has said several times, many of us played DG3 with the old ruleset implied, though it wasn't really there. Smaller issues that may lie within the Three Books can be easily reasoned away, or not even mentioned. And larger issues will be defended by those who are familiar with them, whether they have the document in hand or not.

The bulk of the time needs to be invested in discussing how to resolve conflicts. That's where the game gets hung up, not on the rules.

I wholeheartedly agree, Shaitan. However, if there is a strong contingent to re-invent the rules(and it seems there may be), we will have to learn what those rules will be. ;)

And welcome back. :) It is good to see one of the authors of the DG2 ruleset present. I do, however, ask that you please refrain from providing any "inertia (to the) old ruleset." :D

it should stay as is, I abstain.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
And welcome back. :) It is good to see one of the authors of the DG2 ruleset present. I do, however, ask that you please refrain from providing any "inertia (to the) old ruleset." :D

Little danger there. Time constraints have forced me to retire my law writing pen. It's sitting over on the mantle next to my gavel. ;)

I voted for Modifying the DG2 Books

Modifying the DG2 Three Books is the stupidest idea I have heard yet in these demogames. I see 13 people have voted for that option. I'd really like to know how many of those 13 citizens have even read the Three Books! My guess is maybe three...

ME! :wavey:

I've read the DG2 Three Books, several times in fact, and to be honest I like them, except for some loopholes that we'll have to close and the DG3 PI system should be used (for the most part) over the DG2 one. I think we should post a thread after the conclusion of this poll on suggestions for what we need to fix in the Three Books.

Originally posted by donsig
Modifying the DG2 Three Books is the stupidest idea I have heard yet in these demogames. I see 13 people have voted for that option. I'd really like to know how many of those 13 citizens have even read the Three Books! My guess is maybe three...

Perhaps you would care to explain why this is such a stupid idea?

I voted that way donsig, and I have read the three books.

BTW: I'm thinking about being in the next game

Originally posted by Noldodan

Perhaps you would care to explain why this is such a stupid idea?

I've been doing that ever since they were created. I went through all the arguements at the start of DG3 and thankfully that ruleset was scrapped for DG3. I've been posting my arguments in the restrictive versus permissive thread. I'm sick and tired of saying the same thing over and over again only to be ignored. Hence my frustration. If you really want to know my arguments read the rule discussion threads in this game and the last two. It's all there, I'm not repeating myself anymore.

I do have a challenge for you all though. Since you're not planning on starting DG4 till January, how about we test out your *new* ruleset? Make your rules, let's do a mock up game and let me be president. I'll show you all in one chat session that you can't make a restrictive ruleset, especially one based on the DG2 rules, that will cover everythig and make the game fun. I'm tired of trying to talk sense into you all. I am ready to show you all how rules can be manipulated if the desire is there.

Anyone want to accept my challenge?

I hold myself answered. The challenge though... I'll think about it, but we'll need a ruleset first!

That might be kind of interesting, let's construct our new ruleset, and donsig can point out ways he can get around it (through a demonstration if necessary). That would probably be beneficial for our new ruleset.