Ive just had a wacky idea that may through a few of you out of your seats, how about we actually start this thing? :mischief:

So when exactly are we going to get around to doing it. i appreciate how we have to have the mind numbly boring rule discussions to make sure we sap the fun out of the demogame :rolleyes: but couldnt we just get on with it? start now and maybe have a slightly longer first term is anyone going to mind that much?

And another thing, why the need for these long discussions on whether to have chat stoppages, how many polls have we had so far 3? 4? 5?, why cant we go with the rules which we had during the first 2 demogames? did no-one notice we had more people involved then. so what if it led to a few people stretching the law it was still fun.

Well, since we haven't had discussion on any Articles of the Con in 3 days, I would say that everyoe is fine with the options already discussed. We should open the polls on them today or tomorrow, let them run for 5 days or so, and get our election cycle up and running next week. I want a Demogame up and running when I get back August 1!

It better, my personal interest in the DG is rapidly wearing thin. I may leave for good if it does not restart by September.

I've left in disgust again. The worst side of us comes out when we bicker of the consitution. Lets just run the friggin polls and get this game started. If there isnt a game by September, I;m outta here.

Sarevok: It will be ready very soon, probably by august all those nagging details will be sorted out. ALl well need to to is start doing everything in August and by mid august well most likely be ready to go.

That beiong said, lets move forward with the constitution poll.

Why would it take so long? Why does the Constitution have to be changed every time? Why can't we use the same one as in demogame #1 or #2, which seemed to be the most fun ones so far? Why so many rules? Why can't we just play on trusting our feelings, not always the boring logic and brains?


These discussions are SOOOO boring. No wonder how there are less people now than in demogames 1 or 2.

ah so i did bring up a good point, i was beginning to think i was alone in my thinking. Out of interest then have we had threads discussing our first build queue? first tech etc, i realise thatt hte leaders of these are meant to do this but this may sustain interest a bit longer.

I've left in disgust again. The worst side of us comes out when we bicker of the consitution. Lets just run the friggin polls and get this game started. If there isnt a game by September, I;m outta here.
Ill join you in the withdrawl.

I also prefer the time when we really play over the time in between games, but that time is also important. The sooner we get the constitution and other matters settled, the sooner we can start.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94389
The ACLU.
Just read

I read. I have another word for the big L...

Lowparticipation. I did my part. What have you done besides tell me you're angry?

Don't get personal.

Stuck and I have been around a long time. I'm hoping he didn't take that too personally. He should understand that if I didn't value his opinion, I wouldn't have read his attached post. It was supposed to come out light-hearted.

Yea. I know when Cyc means business. He at least has the respect, unlike some others, to post a rebuttal to an opinion, rather than silently brew over it and use it at a later date.

For next demogame, I think we'll just start the game ASAP, constitution or not. Set up a backbone ruleset of how the game is to be played, and just discuss the odds and ends while we play. That's essentially the way DG1 and 2 worked. This is the kind of stuff that turns users away.

I'm fine with wrapping up the rules and starting asap. I started polling suggested rules and got whacked by some citizens for not having more discussion, so tried to please them by discussing it some, but I think the amendment process will do the trick if we find something which needs to be changed.

Anyone have any clue how long it took DG1 to set up the ruleset and all?

I forget, but I don't think it was very long at all, I'm thinking about a week or so... but I could just have a fuzzy memory.

2 Months is DEFINATELY UNACCEPTABLE, yes I know it's important to get the legal stuff straightened out before the next DG, but for goodness sakes... it should not take this long!!!

I'm glad that there is now a mandated election start date and this we may actually get this show on the road.

I've been paying little attention to the demogame's rule discussions since a couple of weeks after it ended for exactly this reason. Let's get it going ASAP.

Excuse me for being a tad cynical, but it's a bit hard not to be at this point. This seems to be an unending cycle. Phase one, we discuss the rules. Phase two, we get tired of discussing the rules and start the game, and no fundamental changes are made. Phase three, during the game, people complain about the rules. Phase four, the game ends, and rule discussion begins.

My suggestion: Impleament a very basic, no frills, living-by-the-spirit-of-the-law ruleset to get the game underway. Then, scrap the entire ruleset we know (and obviously love). Appoint a group of volunteers as a sort of Constitutional Committee to draft a new document to be presented before the people when they have finished discussing it in private.

That's what Shaitan, donsig, disorganizer, and myself did at the end of DG1. It was an open door thing posted in the Citizen's subforum. It was a mammoth project, as we were starting from scratch with only 1 Civ3 Demogame under our belt. Daveshack and I tried to help ravensfire put together a document for DG4, but that did seem to go over to well... DG3 was pretty much a wash as no one wanted a ruleset that game, so a skeleton Constitution was drawn up - alas, no definitive rules...

Finding common ground for all in the way of a ruleset is the hardest part of a Demogame. You can side step it if you want, but you'll pay for it later, when you're scrambling for the document you should have completed first.

Octavian, the DoF drew up the first Constitution and everyone saluted as he was the originator of the game. Amendments were done immediately and continuously throughout DG1, which is why the group I mentioned in the first sentance of this post was put together towards the end of the game. Good luck on finding volunteers. ;)

Octavian, the DoF drew up the first Constitution and everyone saluted as he was the originator of the game. Amendments were done immediately and continuously throughout DG1, which is why the group I mentioned in the first sentance of this post was put together towards the end of the game. Good luck on finding volunteers. ;)

Has anyone concidered taking the old DG1 Consititution (DoF's version or likely better, the later version) and using that with maybe slight variations? Or has my, to say the least, disinterest in the legal details caused me to miss something which makes this impossible or unwise?

Has anyone concidered taking the old DG1 Consititution (DoF's version or likely better, the later version) and using that with maybe slight variations? Or has my, to say the least, disinterest in the legal details caused me to miss something which makes this impossible or unwise?

Hey Falc.
DoF's Constitution was great as it gave us a platform to operate the game from. But as I said, we were amending it within the first week. It was so full of holes and we were so full of new ideas that the hammering out of a new document never really stopped. The strange thing is, I tried looking for DoF's original Constitution about mid DG2 and couldn't find it, only modified versions. I think it was scurried off into a private Hall of Fame or something.

DG1's final version of the Constitution (like 4.01v) was hammered out to create the DG2 version, 'cause the DG2 version was just plain better all the way around. The DG1 version had too many loopholes and allowed for too much whining from the masses with no recourse.

So it looks like the DG2 version is what you're looking for. But that one is so all inclusive, that people either don't want to read it or follow the rules. Can't win for losing in this game.

I suggest, Cyc, a closed door convention with elected representatives to hammer out a new system of governance, an undertaking that will be monumental, I am sure. I also am confident we can get some who are genearlly interested in taking part in such a project.

Closed door, I say, because of the current climate of this forum. There's always pressure just to get a move on with the whole process, without much attention paid and little done to actually change things for the better, since when there is interest, there's also hostile reaction without much discussion. I also suggest a closed door session since we've drawn up new rulesets in the same way for the last three games in this open manner, with little apparent success. My bet is that, with no pressure to hurry up, and with civil discussion of the issues without having to worry about interference and mod action, a new document can be drawn up and presented as a whole before the fourm. No rush job to get things done - hopefully leading to quality work. All this while the game goes on with it's current ruleset.

The idea of having an elected commission work privately on a ruleset sounds like a great idea. We should consider making the internal workings of such a commission available as a report, to be delivered concurrently with the proposed rule set, so that nobody can claim foul play if rules come out of committee that they don't like.

As for starting with the existing ruleset, I would like to propose allowing amendments with a simple majority (instead of 67%) until 9/1/04 or until ratification of the replacement ruleset, whichever comes first.

I suggest, Cyc, a closed door convention with elected representatives to hammer out a new system of governance, an undertaking that will be monumental, I am sure. I also am confident we can get some who are genearlly interested in taking part in such a project.

Closed door, I say, because of the current climate of this forum. There's always pressure just to get a move on with the whole process, without much attention paid and little done to actually change things for the better, since when there is interest, there's also hostile reaction without much discussion. I also suggest a closed door session since we've drawn up new rulesets in the same way for the last three games in this open manner, with little apparent success. My bet is that, with no pressure to hurry up, and with civil discussion of the issues without having to worry about interference and mod action, a new document can be drawn up and presented as a whole before the fourm. No rush job to get things done - hopefully leading to quality work. All this while the game goes on with it's current ruleset.

I can see a separate panel using a dedicated thread to work on the issues, just as you say, Octavian, but I'm against the closed door convention. Ultimately, through all the whining and complaining, or whatever, it will be better for everyone to see the document being built than just having it be presented to them. This dedicated thread could have an announcement at the top stating that it was for official use only (something of that nature), but if the public wanted to input in any way they could PM us or start a discussion thread of their own (or both). Private meetings are just way too hard to schedule for a group of people, and the private forum, such as the one ravensfire used for the Judiciary, is just tooooo separatist for me. We need to let the people watch if they want to.

I like that idea, Cyc.

Okay, everyone can stop gasping - we don't always disagree.

A small group - 3 to 5 people max, crafting the structure and language, in a consistent format, would probably have things nailed down in 2-3 weeks tops.

The two threads is a good idea as well, although I certainly would not preclude pm's or email discussions as they happen. I would use it as a means to post the issues under discussion, the various proposals and a summary every few days of where things are, what discussions have happened, etc.

The use of 3 day polls to decide deadlock issues would be a good thing as well.

-- Ravensfire

yep i like that idea as it would allow me to completly ignore the rules and there set up. i dont really care how we get it done but i want to start the game during the holidays so i can be of some use.

Talk about a way to kill participation. Just dissapear from sight for two weeks, and then return with something a bunch of officials, with no idea what the people want, came up with. Isolation from the people is the number one way to invent a democratic consitution, just like a complete lack of public posting is a great way to generate participation.

I find it quite funny that those pressuring to hurry things up are complaining about that pressure. I also find it funny that in a rush to get the constitution done people are calling for a two week private session. And that people are for having a bunch of oligarchs draw up a constition for a democracy. Hilarious. :p

You, ahhh, didn't read things too carefully, did you?

Quote from Octavian's:
No rush job to get things done - hopefully leading to quality work. All this while the game goes on with it's current ruleset.

Quote from DaveShack's:
As for starting with the existing ruleset, I would like to propose allowing amendments with a simple majority (instead of 67%) until 9/1/04 or until ratification of the replacement ruleset, whichever comes first.

Hilarious :p

-- Ravensfire

Not quite sure how to take this. Is there something wrong with suggestions of ways to move the game forward as mandated while also having a glimmer of hope that a good ruleset will also be available someday?

Talk about a way to kill participation. Just dissapear from sight for two weeks, and then return with something a bunch of officials, with no idea what the people want, came up with. Isolation from the people is the number one way to invent a democratic consitution, just like a complete lack of public posting is a great way to generate participation.

I find it quite funny that those pressuring to hurry things up are complaining about that pressure. I also find it funny that in a rush to get the constitution done people are calling for a two week private session. And that people are for having a bunch of oligarchs draw up a constition for a democracy. Hilarious. :p

Firt off, Epimethus, I'm not for the isolationism discussed here. I would much rather see everything posted in a dedicated thread in the citizen's subforum. Secondly, no one ever said that you couldn't be one of those official oligarchs. I feel you could contribute to the document in many ways. I also don't remember complaining about the pressure. I've worked on quite a few Constitutions, including one for a different website, and the only real pressure (other than donsigism) I experience is when those citizens who don't feel the need to contribute to the document feel a great need to complain about the end product.

Maybe it's because they don't understand the current wording until something happens. When the demogame was conceived, it was to be a simple game of electing officials, discussing the current events, voting, and putting into effect those actions.

Firt off, Epimethus, I'm not for the isolationism discussed here. I would much rather see everything posted in a dedicated thread in the citizen's subforum.

Good. But someone else did. I'm not necessarily targeting all of you, because that obviously doesn't make much sense.

Secondly, no one ever said that you couldn't be one of those official oligarchs. I feel you could contribute to the document in many ways.

Nice try. ;)

I also don't remember complaining about the pressure. I've worked on quite a few Constitutions, including one for a different website, and the only real pressure (other than donsigism) I experience is when those citizens who don't feel the need to contribute to the document feel a great need to complain about the end product.

I didn't mean to say that the people applying the pressure were the same as those calling for this. I was saying that considering what everyone is ranting about elsewhere, calling for this is absurd. It seems like isolationism already if people think that this is the solution to the problems we have. ;)

Maybe it's because they don't understand the current wording until something happens. When the demogame was conceived, it was to be a simple game of electing officials, discussing the current events, voting, and putting into effect those actions.
And that is what it should be. This is not debate team people, this is a democracy game!

Perhaps I did go to far to suggest a completely closed door experience. Looking at Cyc's comments, perhaps the use of this forum would be good, to keep the process visible. I do still believe it should be a closed one so that those working on the new document will be completely focused on their task - occasional interjects from an occasional observer would be too distracting, I think. Something like a setup where offical threads for working on the new document could be viewed by all, but only posted in by the committee.

This committee, I think, would be better, since decisions, especially votes on certain issues, would procede much faster, and other business could then be discusseded. Of course, such votes should only be decided unanimously, to force compromises of the different views.

good Idea, get it setup!

Maybe it's because they don't understand the current wording until something happens. When the demogame was conceived, it was to be a simple game of electing officials, discussing the current events, voting, and putting into effect those actions.

And then it evolved from that into something more complex. But not to worry....the de-evolution of the game is almost complete, especially when our laws are not even given the importance they deserve from the forum moderator. A bad example, don't you think?

You unilateral decision with no DG5 Forum yet available will only disenfrachise those that hold our ruleset in high regard. I am only about two steps from the door myself. Once we have left, you will have precisely the type of game you wish to have. No fuss, no distracting debate.....just pure chatroom bliss. :rolleyes:

Well, how about making an Anouncement about when you will be putting the DG5 Forums up? We actually want those....

Well, how about making an Anouncement about when you will be putting the DG5 Forums up? We actually want those....
indeed, those would be better.

This is absurd, DZ posted 24 hours ago echoing the same sentiments now expressed by 4 strong members of this community, and all the requests have been ignored. I will not accept the "we werent online" bit because chieftess you have replied in the thread.

Dropping in, making a doomsday prophecy and dissapearing to nowhere is NOT the way this should be occuring.

If it proceeds and there is a single crisis in T1DG5 im gone... for good.

If it proceeds and there is a single crisis in T1DG5 im gone... for good.

What happened to "I will be the last! And you will go first..." :ar15: ?

Just kidding Sarevok. But be careful what you promise us. ;)

What happened to "I will be the last! And you will go first..." :ar15: ?

Just kidding Sarevok. But be careful what you promise us. ;)
Im not kidding. Ill bail if things go bad becasue we start the game too early.

Im not kidding. Ill bail if things go bad becasue we start the game too early.

hang on wernt you saying earlier on in this thread that you would leave if we didnt get it set up quickely?

how about we stop arguing about when the demogame is going to start and for all thoose who feel the need to discuss the rules start discussing them some more, post the polls and be done with it.

Sounds good to me, BCLG100. What position did you say you wanted? ;)

ALL muhahaha, well i was going with something for the judicary ;) as ou all know my dep understanding of the rules consists of barely recognising which postition is which. :)

I thought you told me in the chat room you wanted F/A Minister? But if you can't find your game disk, Judicial is about the only thing open to you, huh...

BTW, the new forums will go up tonight when Thunderfall gets a chance. I'll start the nomination threads here, then they'll be transferred. (as long as you remember to sign the citizen registry. ;))

nah i reckon its somewhere, i can always make extensive use of my deputy ;) i dunno bout running, seems to me there are people with more commitment and who actually understand the rules i wouldnt want to jeopadise the game.

Great! DG5 Forums! Ye-hah!

That still doesn't change the fact that this game, even though it's starting, will still be running on a odd jumble of rules that, time and time again, have been proven to be completely dysfunctional. I'm only sticking around for one more term, to see if we can't get a new ruleset working. After that, well, I'm likely leaving for greener DG pastures.

I think we should follow Octivian X's idea. I volunteer for the 2nd Fanakian Constitutional Convention (sound more fanny :)).