I think the particular joy of the demogame is that it consists of two things: "game" and "demo". On the one hand we are playing a game of civ; on the other we are mimicking a democracy. I sometimes get the feeling that we are maybe focussing too much on the first, and too little on the second. The civ game is won. It may take another 150-200 turns to actually get the cultural win, but barring immense and prolonged stupidity we cannot lose this anymore. This could be a reason for losing participation in itself: I often lose interest in my own games after I have played to a winning position, and then usually I don't finish them. We'll have to find some other ways to keep this interesting, but I really don't know what . The democracy part consists of discussion and voting. It seems to me that the discussions have been dying a bit lately (even though some of the officials and citizens are trying very hard). I don't know why this is or what can be done. Are discussions dying because the game is won? Or because we agree too much? Or because some people are intimidated by the difficulty level, or by others who seem to know more about the game? Or because we do not discuss overall strategy? Actually, I think there is still quite a lot to discuss. For example, there is fairly little citizen input on strategy issues such as: How will we build up culture? How long will it take to reach 130K? How many cities will we build and where? Where are we going to move the palace (if we move it at all) and how? What is our research and trade policy? On many of these issues we are taking ad-hoc decisions because they were not discussed (for example, we now have an FP in Oxford that was never discussed or polled IIRC. Another example is the last minute Great Leader discussion). Most of such strategy questions can be discussed well ahead of the time when they need to be implemented. Another thing that is completely missing from the game is the legal stuff. Our present ruleset needs quite a bit of improvement as it is rather vague. I get the impression that on many occasions officials and citizens are not so much playing by the book as playing nice. It would be better if the book of rules somehow encoded that behaviour. I lurked a bit at one of the previous demogames, and there seemed to be quite a lot of people who were interested in these judicial matters, a subject that is almost entirely silent now. I could imagine that ruleset discussions easily lead to embitterment (if that's an english word ), and maybe this is a reason why many people left right at the start of this demogame -- it seems there was some ...disagreement... on the constitution. Still, it might be nice if we had some civilized discussion on the ruleset and its interpretation, and it might attract a new (or old) group of players. On difficulty level: there are quite a few people around here who are comfortable with Emperor or higher, but I could imagine that someone who normally plays Regent is put off by the high difficulty and the corresponding level of the game-related discussion. I can only say that I value everyone's contribution, even if I don't agree with it, and I would like to encourage everyone to post his/her thoughts, and state their arguments as forcefully as they can. Nothing more boring than a discussion where everyone agrees. -------------------- Why? (I can ask this in complete innocence as you left before I came ).