This poll is to propose and ratify provincial borders for the capitol province of Berry.

A YES vote shall have the effect of establishing the borders of Berry province as mapped.

A NO vote will leave the provincial borders undefined.

The map (courtesy of Cyc)
http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads6/DG4_BC1575_berry_province.jpg

Link to discussion thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75628)

This poll will remain open for 3 days (72 hours)

Vote: No.

I detest these borders. :D

Yes
I don't like these borders, but we need a province now.
Better to have a province than none.

I say no. Other games, we included the coastlines. Also, we don't know if that land mass to the west of DR extends down. We'd have a very funny looking province if it does.

I also voted No, but if this proposal passes we can always adjust it at a later time.

And I agree with CT about including the coastlines.

There has been ample time for proposals. We need a defined province, so I voted yes. It is easily changed and so those of you who do not like this can draw up some proposals and have a vote.

i disagree with these borders for the following reasons:
1. the province should include the coastal tiles.
2. i think Vandelay should be included in the province as its a city that i think will be very similar to the capitol (both on floodplains) and should be in the same province.

Originally posted by zorven
There has been ample time for proposals. We need a defined province, so I voted yes. It is easily changed and so those of you who do not like this can draw up some proposals and have a vote.

Ample time? Yes.
Ample Exploration? Not quite.

It's only 1575BC, and I think we need to explore just a bit more around our capital. There's still fog by the coast to the SE, and what appears to be a possible peninsula or landbridge in the west. There's also coast to include, too.

Originally posted by RoddyVR
i disagree with these borders for the following reasons:
1. the province should include the coastal tiles.
2. i think Vandelay should be included in the province as its a city that i think will be very similar to the capitol (both on floodplains) and should be in the same province.

Un-freaking-believable. This has turned into such a bizare Demogame. Starting with the donsigism that held up the rulemaking process, through all the crap we've been through including the poor starting location, including the thought of developing our nation far away from the Capital City,...:confused: :crazyeye: Everything. Now, I see because ravensfire didn't include the word Land in the Law posted before, people that have no idea of the concept of the 126-tile plan are making decisions about it in a bass-ackward way. Because the rule-making process was so screwed up and we started the game before it got squared away, I let the below stated rule go without adding the "one" word you people have decided to use in bending the intent of the Law. Unbelievable.

2. The Congress (Citizens)
a. Comprised of all registered citizens of Fanatika.
b. Provincial borders shall be determined and approved
by the Congress.
1. A province should contain no more than
approximately 126 tiles

That Law should say 126 LAND tiles. That was the intent of the Law when it was written. The purpose of using land tiles is so that the tiles within a Province can have a city placed on them. Your Coastal tiles CANNOT have a city placed on them. Coastal and Sea tiles come later in the Game when their is a redistricting. But you people are going to pretend that you were never in a previous game, or that you weren't paying attention when these rules were written. All of this was explained to you before the Game started. Now three of you claim that you're voting no because you think the Law should be broken (Or because you are lawyers, you feel you can litigate this point because one word was left out of the Law.) in your favor. Who knows what you are up to know.

In plain English, the initial border count of tiles included within those borders do not include anything but land tiles. The type of tiles used in counting the amount of tiles within a Province are Land tiles, not water tiles.

But I'm sure you people will insist on breaking the Law because you can. You've done it all game.

Coastal tiles *SHOULD* be included. Those tiles are worked just as often as land tiles. It's just a GAME. Let's not get bent out of shape over 1 lousy word amongst 5 million in an already complex and stingy ruleset!

This is what I really didn't want to see happen. Arguing over every single word choice (land vs coast. entertainer vs. specialist). NOTHING IS GOING TO GET DONE THAT WAY!!! I garuntee you, that even after 6 months of arguing over a ruleset, there'll be people who aren't happy with it. Why is it that when we bite off more than we can chew (DG2 - emperor level), or get a bad start (this game), we wind up bickering over everything? As for "paying attention", who's going to pay attention when there's a novel of laws to read? I bet you that some people just vote "yes" or "no" because one of the most vocal people say so, not because they read every period and every comma. I never said I was trying to break the rules. I read about 126 tiles, and, based on prior games, that meant "and coastal tiles".

This poll is just that, a poll. Let's leave it that way. Cyc, you uttered those immortal words once... "Let's put this poll down, and back away. Slowly."

It's only a game. Let's not get all bent out of shape.

You point out, Cyc, that we are considering land 'approximately 126 land tiles (as was the intent of the above rule). Judging from the fogged portion, there may be other obscurred non-land tiles (however unlikely this is).

I fail to see how setting borders at this time is critical. I voted No

Originally posted by Chieftess
Coastal tiles *SHOULD* be included. Those tiles are worked just as often as land tiles. It's just a GAME. Let's not get bent out of shape over 1 lousy word amongst 5 million in an already complex and stingy ruleset!

This is what I really didn't want to see happen. Arguing over every single word choice (land vs coast. entertainer vs. specialist). NOTHING IS GOING TO GET DONE THAT WAY!!! I garuntee you, that even after 6 months of arguing over a ruleset, there'll be people who aren't happy with it. Why is it that when we bite off more than we can chew (DG2 - emperor level), or get a bad start (this game), we wind up bickering over everything? As for "paying attention", who's going to pay attention when there's a novel of laws to read? I bet you that some people just vote "yes" or "no" because one of the most vocal people say so, not because they read every period and every comma. I never said I was trying to break the rules. I read about 126 tiles, and, based on prior games, that meant "and coastal tiles".

This poll is just that, a poll. Let's leave it that way. Cyc, you uttered those immortal words once... "Let's put this poll down, and back away. Slowly."

It's only a game. Let's not get all bent out of shape.

CT, I'm not the one who's trying to break the rules here. What makes you think I'm getting bent out of shape. Although TM90 has a point about the fog covering the portion of the Province on the water's edge to the SE, it is unlikely that those aren't land tiles. If they are not land tiles, then TM90's comment about setting borders this early matches my statement that we should wait until we have more info about this area before setting borders. donsig was rushing the issue, so I created a map to satisfy him. I did not post this poll.

I am trying to illuminate the issue that people are trying to change the intent of a law. As Rik Meleet has stated, ignorance is no excuse. I just cant see the justification of you people changing the law, because you think you can. In your claim that this is just a game, I will counter with "show me a game with no rules". I know you don't like to read the Constitution, CT, therefore I can see why you wouldn't have read the discussion thread leading up to the poll that ratified this Law. Like I said before, this is getting too bizare. What good are the rules? We just change them or break them when they don't suit us.

cyc, i didnt say that coast tiles should be included because i think that what the rules say, i said (and think) it because i think it makes sence.

why was 126 tiles used? why land tiles? you say there was an original intent behind that meaning to the rule, i dont know it. besides, i dont see the point of making such detailed laws. i just think that the first province should be AROUND the capitol, not off to the southwest of it, and i think that if there is a size requirement, it should be based on workable tiles, not citycapable tiles, as we'd never have 126 cities in a province anyway.

i voted NO, because i dont like the proposed border for the first province, and i gave my reasons. and you respond by saying "people who have no clue, are deciding things in a bass-ackward way".

Originally posted by RoddyVR
cyc, i didnt say that coast tiles should be included because i think that what the rules say, i said (and think) it because i think it makes sence.

why was 126 tiles used? why land tiles? you say there was an original intent behind that meaning to the rule, i dont know it. besides, i dont see the point of making such detailed laws. i just think that the first province should be AROUND the capitol, not off to the southwest of it, and i think that if there is a size requirement, it should be based on workable tiles, not citycapable tiles, as we'd never have 126 cities in a province anyway.

i voted NO, because i dont like the proposed border for the first province, and i gave my reasons. and you respond by saying "people who have no clue, are deciding things in a bass-ackward way".

RoddyVR,

If you look through the older threads in the Citizen's subforum, you'll find the discussion for the relevant section of the Code of Laws. I think it's called section D in the thread title - look for the CoL discussion on the Legislation - you'll find your answers about why 126 tiles there.

-- Ravensfire

Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72140) is the thread Ravensfire mentions.

First, I never said you were trying to break the rules, Cyc. Where did I say that? Second, I think threads like those should have a more, meaningful title than just "Discussion on section D of the CoL". (BTW, if you want to be technical, the forum rules even say make titles of threads/posts descriptive enough -- "Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. "). "Section D of the CoL" tells me nothing. "Section D (Province and Border Issues) of the CoL" would tell me a LOT more.

One could also argue that it's the citizen's right to make admendments to the constitution. To me, it seems like you want everyone to think the way you think. Citizens can SAY, "I don't think this is working", and make a thread on it. Not everyone is as well versed in legal verbage.

Anyway, once again, the game is being superceeded by legal debates. Let's just drop it and get on with the game.

I never said that you said that, CT. You said "Let's not get bent out of shape here". I replied, "I'm not.", as evidenced by my not wanting to break the Law. :lol: This conversation does justify my "bizare" comment, though.

Second, you didn't have to search for a discussion thread that specifically identified itself with an overtly descriptive title. All you had to do was click on the "related discussion" link in the poll. Or occasionally read the discussions in the Citizen's sub forum to stay eye-level with what's going on.

And I never said that Citizens can't/shouldn't change the Laws. I have been saying they should use proper procedure in doing so, not just interpret in their own meaning, or break the Law.

And Finally, I can see why you want to end this discussion and stop talking about legal matters. ;)

Stepping in here for a bit...

I don't really see how including ocean squares would violate the law. If it included c. 126 land tiles plus some ocean ones, would that be a direct violation of our ruleset? If so, I'd like to see the rule (and I'm open to changing my viewpoint if it is).

CT, Cyc does have a point about ending this discussion about legal matters. It might be best if you try to end this debate rather than having it drag out.

Look, this is just one poll. Let's just let it die a natural death and be done with it.

Fine with me CT. I have said it was too early to poll this.

Boots, if we're going to use Ocean tiles, why not just extend the borders out to meet the potential borders of the next land mass? Say the next continent? OR the next Province, what does it matter. Or are you going to say that you like YOUR restriction on the Provincial border guidelines better, as opposed to the ones that were intended with this Law? See, that's where you're missing the point. You would rather break the Law (or change it without following procedure) than just abide by it (or change it the proper way) :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Cyc
Fine with me CT. I have said it was too early to poll this.

Boots, if we're going to use Ocean tiles, why not just extend the borders out to meet the potential borders of the next land mass? Say the next continent? OR the next Province, what does it matter. Or are you going to say that you like YOUR restriction on the Provincial border guidelines better, as opposed to the ones that were intended with this Law? See, that's where you're missing the point. You would rather break the Law (or change it without following procedure) than just abide by it (or change it the proper way) :rolleyes:
Cyc, the law never seems to clearly state that ocean tiles cannot be included in the provinces. I see no reason that my interpretation that around 126 land tiles plus any number of ocean tiles can be included in a province is any more invalid than your statement that ocean tiles cannot be included.

First of all Bootstoots, Ocean Tiles can by no means be used for any kind of development or production of a Province as they are at least 3 tiles away from the coast. Therefore, why would we even consider putting them in a Province?

Second, although your interpretation of the Law is important considering that you are a Citizen of Fanatica, but your opinion does not hold more weight than the Law. The intent of the Law is well documented in several discussions leading up to it's ratification. :)

Okay, well, I'll leave it at that. It would of course be illogical to extend the borders to ocean squares, but I still don't see why they can't be included, as it never specifically says that they can't. I will stop contributing to this argument, however. :)

One way to look at it is, we were doing fine with including the coastlines the past 3 demogames. Why stop now?

I'm frankly quite disappointed with the tone this game has taken on.

There was a discussion thread, started at the explicit request of a citizen, and exactly one proposal. It sat there for 2 weeks, and so it was taken forward as a poll. If you have an alternative border suggestion, the discussion thread is still there. We have vocal input from several citizens that they want leaders who base their proposals on citizen input, but some of those same people say this is a bad proposal without offering any alternatives. It's trivial to shoot someone else's idea down, let's try to be a little more positive and offer solutions.

DaveShack,

It's happened on nearly every thread, why should this be different.

BTW, I've done some research. The initial proposal that established the 126-tile format was proposed on the 27th. The poll was posted on the 5th. That clause essentially remained the same from start to finish.

Nobody complained about "land" being missing.

In fact, nobody even brought up "land" in the ensuing discussion.

The rational for 126 was the full radius for a certain number of cities (5 I believe), plus enough for a smaller city somewhere. Coastal tiles do end up being part of a cities radius ...

One way or another, I really don't care which way we go. Settle it through an amendment, settle it through a JR or settle it through the cleanup of the reported bugs - take your pick.

But for the sanity of us all, we NEED to get some borders going.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
But for the sanity of us all, we NEED to get some borders going.

-- Ravensfire

That one's going into my quotebook! :p



Anyway, yes, it HAS happened in every thread. Let's go back to where it was pointed out that "If advisors don't post adequate discussions, then they're lazy". Well, here, citizens didn't spot that "land" was missing. Does that mean we have lazy citizens? This is like a dog chasing its' own tail. We're getting no where. Even if we spent another month just discussing rules, I'm pretty sure there'll be those who've reached the "Burnout" point and just vote to get it over with, and get on with the game.

Sure this is term 2 and we have no borders yet... and I'll say it again. Our current ruleset seems to demand that we move slowly and stop at every bump in the road. Because of that, we haven't progressed as far as other demogames.

DG 1 - We were somewhere around 250BC by the end of Term 1.
DG 2 - We were somewhere around 1990BC by the end of Term 1. However, this was when we were meeting 16-odd civs left and right every other turn.
DG 3 - Where were at 430BC by the end of term 1. Here, we were isolated, and had only met a few civs.

There is NO law that says, "Provincial borders must be defined and polled by term 1". In DG2, we stopped a LOT of times early on because of meeting new civs, trades, etc. IIRC, we didn't get the borders up until about part way through the 2nd term. I think we're close to uncovering the fog, and that WILL help to define our borders. Also, we only have 3 cities at the start of term 2. Only DG2 was like this (granted, risky), but we were going for warrior-to-sword upgrade, with a VERY reliable iron source.

Id wait on this, no.

Originally posted by ravensfire
DaveShack,

It's happened on nearly every thread, why should this be different.

BTW, I've done some research. The initial proposal that established the 126-tile format was proposed on the 27th. The poll was posted on the 5th. That clause essentially remained the same from start to finish.

Nobody complained about "land" being missing.

In fact, nobody even brought up "land" in the ensuing discussion.

The rational for 126 was the full radius for a certain number of cities (5 I believe), plus enough for a smaller city somewhere. Coastal tiles do end up being part of a cities radius ...

One way or another, I really don't care which way we go. Settle it through an amendment, settle it through a JR or settle it through the cleanup of the reported bugs - take your pick.

But for the sanity of us all, we NEED to get some borders going.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire, the reason I didn't b1tch about the way you wrote the law was because of the same reason everyone is stating in these threads. I just let it go because all the documentation I gave you on the 126-tile plan specifically stated what I'm saying here. You supported that plan as a whole. I never once heard you whine about the "LAND" part. I suppose that was because it was mentioned so many times before. Now you say you are changing your mind? What's this another reversal? This issue was taken care of long ago. The only reason the Law has to be changed is so that some people can't easily work their way around it.

In post 25 of the discussion thread for this poll, the Internal Affairs Minister asked me about the Land part of the Land Tile Plan. He asked "Is the tile limit based on workable tiles, or land tiles? There is value in considering workable water tiles, but without knowing where cities will fall it is difficult to count them." I answered exactly like I am here in this thread and no opposition was written in the remainder of that disscussion thread until today, because of this poll thread discussion. Now after the poll had run a while, people want to change the Law because that "one word" wasn't included. Regardless of how this debacle turns out, it just goes to prove the poor way this game has developed with rule-breaking and arrogant attitudes that demand what they want without putting in enough effort beforehand to make it so. Typical.