Our moderator recently dropped by the DemoGame to give this announcement:

Nominations start on July 23rd (http://forums.civfanatics.com/announcement.php?f=113).

Do you feel this is too early or just about right?

This is an informational poll, and will run for four days.

This is an outrage. After ignoring almost all discussion, one of our mods drops a unilateral decision to start the game in 4 days. Most ratification polls take more than 4 days to become official!

This decision was hasty and misinformed and clearly favors one side of the populace, the side that has no interest in laws and would rather sit in a chatroom playing what would amount to a succession game. After all that is precisely what it would be with NO LAWS!!!

I would challenge our esteemed mod to alter the Announcement to showcase the "Anarchy" Game, cause that is pretty much what this move is fostering. :mad:

Oh, and did I even mention that we are still in the DG4 Forum???

So , unless we plan on playing DG4 II: the Revenge right here, I would advise that new digs be opened for DG5 IMMEDIATELY. So get ready for a whirlwind of confusion as our moderators will now need to scramble to post a brand new Forum while closing this one. Not to mention all the confused participants new and old that will be thrust headlong into the abyss by this abrupt change.

Enough about that, however. The train is about to roll. Can our mods rise up to Chieftess' challenge in time???

Why couldn't the new forum be opened when the former demogame ends and new discussion starts, wouldn't it be easier? :hmm:

Too early.

Somehow I doubt our esteemed moderator is going to change minds any time soon. I can only suggest we get ratification polls going within the next 24 hours.

However DZ, I agree with you, this is getting off to a bad start already.

I think several months of debating on rules is much worse than an early start.

And I still don't get it. Why can't the same rules be used as in DG 1 or 2?

Way too early. Can I get banned for calling a Mod a Bozo? I guess I better find out before I do it.

Anyway, we should have learned our lesson from DG4. Rules first, then Nominations...

Ankka, the way the Demogame Forums have EVOLVED, we have found it much better to fill the old forums with the posts about starting a new game rather than have them all clog up the new fora. The important and unfinished debates/threads are brought over to the next games forums.

DZ, I heard Thunderfall wasn't going to open DG5 forums before we got the rules squared away. But that was just rumor.

Ankka, how about a couple of months of debate over rules, followed by a fast track when things are being simonized?

BTW I agree with you about the DG1/2 ruleset.

I feel compelled to post an analysis, without voting.

It is true that starting without a complete ruleset is asking for trouble. If it goes badly, we will have a repeat of DG4, with a term 1 which is buried in controversy, and so many legal challenges that we won't be able to find the game threads buried in all the clutter. It could go well if certain people, whom I shall not name but whose identities are well known, refrain from spending the first month filing JR's and CC's at every drop of a hat.

It is equally true that waiting any longer risks a dramatic drop in participation which could kill the game before it even starts. What we need is a really fun game, with lots of participation from many veterans and many new people. Instead of looking for permission to run a RPG within the government threads, the people who get into that need to just do it. Citizens who are not happy when an issue doesn't get discussed need to get the discussion going themselves.

By the way, I seem to remember a certain mod who decided that DG4 was going to start on 1/2/04 (with noms on 12/22/03 ?) whether we were ready or not... :rolleyes: :lol:

Ankka, how about a couple of months of debate over rules, followed by a fast track when things are being simonized?
simonized? :confused:

i think its too right, we should have started ages ago, maybe this will give us a kick to finally finish the rules, besides we wont actually be starting till august seeing how nominations and elections take a few days by this time if we havnt finished the rules we have something seriously wrong with us.

By the way, I seem to remember a certain mod who decided that DG4 was going to start on 1/2/04 (with noms on 12/22/03 ?) whether we were ready or not... :rolleyes: :lol:

I was waiting for that comparison from someone, DS, but there are some huge differences.

1. The 1/2/04 deadline was announced by myself in late October, which gave us two months to shoot for an attainable goal. And my decision to start the game regardless was based on the fact that most of the rules were already in place. Unfortunately, the election rules were not. Going back, it would have been best to postpone the game for another month, but I would have heard about that as well. So it was a lose-lose call for me. :)

2. The DG4 Forum was opened on December 4th IIRC, a full month before the beginning of the game. We still don't have a new forum here and the game starts in three days?

3. Unlike the current staff, I did my best to help draft our laws so that we could make the deadline I had established. We fell just short of our goal.


So say what you will about my missteps. I have always taken full responsibility for my mistakes, as I did when they happened. I doubt that you will get the same candid admissions regarding this reactionary measure.

I would like to start as well, but how about we wait a little more?

I suggest that nominations start 28.07. That would give us a week to complete the rules and three days to have nominations and elections and then start the game 1st August.

but isnt that when were planning on starting anyway? just we have more time for nominations and elections, and to get things initially set up. we can finsh the rules in that time.

pointless smilie = :wallbash:

I would like to start as well, but how about we wait a little more?

I suggest that nominations start 28.08. That would give us a week to complete the rules and three days to have nominations and elections and then start the game 1st August.

I assume you mean 28.07?

I was waiting for that comparison from someone, DS, but there are some huge differences.
. . .
So say what you will about my missteps. I have always taken full responsibility for my mistakes, as I did when they happened.


You did indeed take responsibility, which is an example more people should follow. :D

Your comparisons between the two situations are also right on.

I'm against a timely date, appointed long beforehand at random simply to please things, without taking into account when we're ready. Especially if we actually start two days earlier than that like in Iraq.

It seems like at this rate we'll be ready by the first. So lets aim for that.

Ouch, you're getting into trouble:

Respect the authority of moderators

Public discussions of moderator actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private. If it's not resolved or if you don't receive a reply from the moderator after 24 hours, you can then PM or email Thunderfall.

And, anyway, you'll notice that every member of the ACLU is supporting the early elections.

I assume you mean 28.07?

Correct. Edited my post.

I'm against a timely date, appointed long beforehand at random simply to please things, without taking into account when we're ready. Especially if we actually start two days earlier than that like in Iraq.

It seems like at this rate we'll be ready by the first. So lets aim for that.

July 23rd date is for ELECTIONS, the start of the game itself should be the first, as you discribed. So, I don't see you in disagreement with the date. However, resolving command structure should be a priority in preperations for elections (and I think command structure may already be finished).

As for me, I think I'm withholding my vote, since I have done very little to follow the progress of the actual legal developments, and don't have time to go through them all right now.

Not elections, nominations. (It's the election cycle though)

BTW, I did warn you guys earlier this month that, if the discussions continued into mid-July, that I would consider starting this game, wheter you like it or not. It's been 2 months. Do you expect to perk users interest by arguing over how a few words should be written?

Figured I would throw in my 2 cents since I noticed this....

I obviously don't know all the details, but I scanned through the threads and forums that seemd to apply.

In my opinion the length of advance notice is too short, but I agree with getting the game started rather then prolonging the game so that certain discusssions can be completed to finallity. Just more lead time should have been given between the 'official' annoucment and the start date.

A quick look through the discussion threads don't show them to be too active, so I think most people don't care about the details (which has been my experience).

A long, drawn out, period of no game playing usually just makes people wander away from the game, most to not come back. The Constituation will always be tweaked during the game and will never, in fact, be 'perfect'. Having a good base item to work from and develope is really all that's needed. At some point it reaches where there are diminishing returns on the time spent on discussions and the overall benefit/result that are obtained from them. It seems the discussions are into that realm.

But, again, I also think the lead time for the 'drop dead' date is too short. It basically slams whatever players that have been putting countless hours into trying to tweak the rules. Any polls they established using the 'normal' voting guidelines may be wasted due to the short notice. The discussions should be allowed to reach some point of closure rather than just be yanked. Then people could at least focus on those elements that are of major importance and let the rest stay as they are for the game to start. I guess the game could always start with whatever rule set is in place and let the discussions continue as they are into the new game.

In the end, you are all just trying to have some fun and play an interesting game. :)

I never said anything about abolishing the current laws being discussed... Just a temporary groundwork will do. Shouldn't be THAT hard to post a few threads, discuss, and post instructions...

My gravest concern is the forum movement, traditionally, nominations happen in the NEW forum, as to avoid any confusion. Unless you intend to make the move tonight, including all the constitutional discussions, and starting a citizen registry, its going to get confusing for those new players who want to start the game off in power.

Give the new people a chance, we've spent the last weeks telling them were still planning, now spontaneously jump up and say "oh BTW the rules arent in place but were having nominations in the DG4 forums for the DG5" if I were new I would be confused and put off by this madness.

Isn't the current system to still have a discussion thread open for a couple days, then have a poll open for a few days....? What about the quarom rule? Is that still in place?

I don't think it should be that hard either, but making people chane gears in less then a week....?

If the set-up time was gong to be compressed, maybe the system should have been compressed as well, or at least have a firm deadline well in advance....

A stay of maybe a week on the beginning of election cycles may be in order, but not any more than that. The game needs to get going, but we should get at least a constitution in place before the term starts.

Well.... I'll say one thing.

I can see one of two things happening.

A.) This being praised as the one trigger which got the Demogame moving and encouraging everyone to wrap up the Beuracracy

B.) This being condemned as a mistake which caused Chaos soon after DG5 started from people being forced to wrap up the consitition too quickly to produce a quality document.

I'm not taking sides on this, however I think EVERYONE has gotta admit, whether they thing more time is needed or not, that 2 months or even more is much longer then these discussions SHOULD have taken, regardless of whether we now need more time or not.

I've always been for a rather simplistic constitution, it's just a game, we shouldn't have to deal with alot of Buracracy, as I've always said # 1 rule is "follow the will of the people." Leaders with designated responcibilities, included posting numerous disscussion threads and polls to encourage citizen activity. Turnchats are always optional however I've always enjoyed them, the Civ II DG has lived without 'em.

I still think we should take the Constitution at the end of DG1 which seemed to me to work so well, and just edit that to what we now "know" and "need."

Preferably we should be able to run from one DG right into the next, no more 2 month planning periods! and hopefully no more 1 month planning periods either, but getting the DG restarted by the begaining of the next month (or sooner) after the end of the previous DG.

Anyway this whole consitution planning thing has gotten on my nerves, it should not take this long and it should not be stalling like this... and if anyone want's to bring it up my lack of participation in legal matters should not hinder that. In fact this lack of progress has increased my apathy twoards the legal details.

The one thing which gets on my nerves the most, is I was hoping to be able to get back into the DG at the start of the term... that idea seems to be fading as time goes by. I can practically garentee once college starts up again I WILL NOT be able to play the DG anymore, with a heavy class load comming up 3 Aerospace courses, one Thermodynamics course, along with a single literature course. Plus I hope to get a job within my major for the semester which will take a good bit of my free time... if things don't get started for Augest I will be forced out of the DG completely again, as once Sept. starts I'll likely be out of the game.

Sorry for going off topic... but I'm just getting rather frustated at seeing how the DG has been static much too long, and seeing how that seems to be setting itself from preventing me from full participating in yet another demogame.

@Falcon.
2 Months is too long. And frankly I wouldn't mind having the DG's follow up on eachother immediately, or with a short (1 week) break. There is no-one forbidding anyone to think and post about the constitution for the next DG in the current DG.

If you wan the DG to start right now, go do it but make sure there is no psychotic chaos becasue we have so many unresolved issues.

I still haven't been told why the rules from the first <dg's have to be changed every time...:hmm:

I still haven't been told why the rules from the first <dg's have to be changed every time...:hmm:

At the end of each game, there are people who were dissatisfied with how the last game went. There are also some people who actually like legal discussions. :cringe:

I'm in it for the debate, but would prefer debates about game play over endless arguments about rule variants and continuous JR's and CC's.

The best ruleset we had was the one we used to start DGIII. Why don't we just adopt the DGIII constitution and play the game?

@DaveShack: The more rules there are there more JRs and CCs and legal discussions there will be. There is nothing wrong or even distasteful in liking legal discussions. I like them. But, believe it or not, I prefer playing the game and would prefer playing the game with a minimum of legal hassles. I do see it as my duty to point out to everyone instances when we do not follow the rules we ourselves made.

to everyone: Ankka has a point. Why change the rules everytime? After 4 demogames we've have had one ruleset that worked fine. Let's return to the DGIII constitution and get DGV rolling.

Here is my proposal to resolve this:

Nominations start tomorrow, to get things rolling. However, the leaders you elect will first be charged with completing the constitution. This is not to say that noone else can participate, but it will be the duty of all elected officials to finish the job. Once the constitution is ratified by the entire populace, creation day will take place, and not before. So, if the first group of leaders wants to play a decent portion of the game, they will be encouraged to get things done. They will also have the poltical pressure of not being seen as slack or lazy while this process is going on.

Waiting a whole other month is simply out of the question, and I believe that was CT's reasoning for imposing a deadline. Hopefully you can manage to see it as nothing more than a 'kick in the pants' to get things moving.

Here is my proposal to resolve this:

Nominations start tomorrow, to get things rolling. However, the leaders you elect will first be charged with completing the constitution. This is not to say that noone else can participate, but it will be the duty of all elected officials to finish the job. Once the constitution is ratified by the entire populace, creation day will take place, and not before. So, if the first group of leaders wants to play a decent portion of the game, they will be encouraged to get things done. They will also have the poltical pressure of not being seen as slack or lazy while this process is going on.

Waiting a whole other month is simply out of the question, and I believe that was CT's reasoning for imposing a deadline. Hopefully you can manage to see it as nothing more than a 'kick in the pants' to get things moving.
What for the officials that are not skilled at at the legal matters?

What for the officials that are not skilled at at the legal matters?

They either learn to do it (which will probably benefit them in the future anyway), or they wait for the next term. This needs to get done, and right now it quite simply is progressing way to slowly.

Maybe the first 3 members of the judiciary should be charged with actually wording the rules, as these people should be skilled in 'legal matters'.

The best ruleset we had was the one we used to start DGIII. Why don't we just adopt the DGIII constitution and play the game?
Actually, despite some... wrinkles, I agree that the DGIII constitution was
just fine. We would need to clarify some things, such as the definition of "legal instruction" and the PI process, but other than that it worked pretty well.

The whole plan sounds like a great idea to me, eyrei. It will be a work plan for first Term Leaders. We are really not prepared for Creation Day. I only hope the election process concludes without a hitch.

Actually, despite some... wrinkles, I agree that the DGIII constitution was
just fine. We would need to clarify some things, such as the definition of "legal instruction" and the PI process, but other than that it worked pretty well.


I disagree. I believe the DG3 Constitution was the reason that the DG3 Justice system was so messed up. But maybe a lack of rules and definitions is what we need right now, who knows. The DG3 Con was just that to me. A con. Look how is it was manipulated by some.

This solution still slams the door squarely shut on any new player who wishes to participate in the infancy of our nation.

Speak so highly of wanting high participation then move forward with an oligarchy first term, our most important term.

This solution still slams the door squarely shut on any new player who wishes to participate in the infancy of our nation.

Speak so highly of wanting high participation then move forward with an oligarchy first term, our most important term.

When new players come to the forum and find there isn't actually a game, they are very likely to choose not to participate as well. ;)

How about using the DGIII constitution, but with DGI/II Judiciary?

Irrelevent, there WILL be a game eventually. Within a matter of weeks.

There will not be a second chance for them to be among the first leaders of demogame 5. What precidence does this set for the terms after the first one? any new player would automatically be of the mindset "well it seems as though the veterans get all the positions" and they will leave.

Still no reply about the new forums yet...

But don't the veterans usually get most of the positions? ;)


I am with Cheetah and donsig on the constitution talks.

But don't the veterans usually get most of the positions? ;)
Do new players get the chance to get ANY under this system of "leaders will make the constitution"?

I dont care who is elected at the end of the cycle, I care about new players having the CHANCE to be elected.

Do new players get the chance to get ANY under this system of "leaders will make the constitution"?

I dont care who is elected at the end of the cycle, I care about new players having the CHANCE to be elected.
And why should new players have any less of a chance of being elected? It's not like we're set on only veterans getting a chance to help make the constitution.

Would you....as a new player, and witnessing the last 2 months of deadlock, really want to be involved in the process?

Would you really believe yourself familiar enough with the 4 law structures we've had?

Would you....as a new player, and witnessing the last 2 months of deadlock, really want to be involved in the process?

Would you really believe yourself familiar enough with the 4 law structures we've had?

Would you....as a new play, and witnessing the last two months of deadlock, hope to end it?

Does it really matter how familiar you are with the previous laws?

Immortal, you are missing the point, I think. What I proposed was that the leaders have to work on the constitution. Anyone else who wishes to participate is free to do so, and eventually the whole thing will be voted on by the citizens anyway, so its hardly an oligarchy.

And regarding new players not wanting to be involved in the process, I think that is already the case. Most will probably just want it to end so the game can start.

Removed

Whatever...no sense arguing, wont make a difference.

Even with the proposal Octavian suggested for drawing up a Constitution, there was a way for new players to give input. That plan had an elected committee doing the work. With eyrei's plan the elected commitee is the newly elected Government, who have a responsibility to lead the nation. This eliminates an extra election. Plus it identifies the people who will be responsible for getting their act together and rewards them with a Leadership position at the same time. I don't really see a problem here, Immortal. If new players want to be a Leader, they will sign up. If they don't, they won't.

Were some people not moaning a few days ago that the moderators were not having a big enough influence on the game, well here they are theyve made their decsion, its not changing so DEAL with it finish the rules within the allotted time, it will speed us up if we care that much, if we dont manage to finish discussions at least within this time it obviously didnt mater that much.

Were some people not moaning a few days ago that the moderators were not having a big enough influence on the game, well here they are theyve made their decsion, its not changing so DEAL with it finish the rules within the allotted time, it will speed us up if we care that much, if we dont manage to finish discussions at least within this time it obviously didnt mater that much.
This is NOT The type of influence I had in mind.

wow... I just got back from my vacation, and I am sorta clueless
but from what I see, is there wasnt a long enough notice...

There was a notice early this month when I said that if this buero-fest threatens to go into the 3rd month, then the will would be starting ASAP, and we can finish up while we play. We did the same in DG1/2. Rik and I both made this decision.

Why don't we do that then Chieftess? Just ratify and make laws as the game progresses and as the needs for them rises.

Chieftess your post is slightly out of date due to the fact that your elections will be being conducted at the same time as the expiration of my constitutional polls. It has been, and always will be a running process of adapting laws but due to a number of posters literally cannon-balling the constitution into completion in the last 48 hours, it will be ready by the end of elections.