C3C DemoGame Revival - Game 1 (DGRG1)

[Cyc]

Basically what I said in post 12? The "got it" post is very good. Estabishes a time stamp. The Chain of Command would be used in determining which elected official had priority.

 

[ravensfire]

Basically what I said in post 12? The "got it" post is very good. Estabishes a time stamp. The Chain of Command would be used in determining which elected official had priority.

Yup!

Honestly though, I wouldn't worry about the CoC. If multiple officials want it, let them figure it out.

-- Ravensfire

 

[civplayah]

So, what do all those letters mean besides 5 city challenge?

 

[Cyc]

DP - Designated Player. The player designated to play the current save.

CoC - Chain of Command. 1. President, 2. Domestic Advisor, 3. Miitary Advisor, etc.

Don't worry about the 5bc or 5cc. Means the same thing.

Others?

 

[GenMarshall]

As for I, I'd like to see the return of the classical traditional game, no variants (IE no 5CC or 1CC). For the presidency, separate the DP role and have it as a separate system of a pool of willing individuals (elected or appointed by the president) to play the role of DP. That way the president does not have to face any heat from any mistakes he or she made during the game play.

I must be one of the few handful of Civ3DG vets still around.

 

[thecommonnate]

I will tag along for this DG.

 

[Black_Hole]

That way the president does not have to face any heat from any mistakes he or she made during the game play.

We need to have some responsibility...

 

[GenMarshall]

We need to have some responsibility...

Why should the president take the heat for a mistake that a DP has made!? Idealy, provided we are going with the DPs playing the save elected by the people in previous DGs, it should be the DP to take the heat for a mistake that he or she made during their turnplay.

To add in, people aren't that forgiving in these games and would hold a grudge against the official and decreacing his or her chances in future elections.

 

[Cyc]

CivGeneral, if you don't want to play the save (or can't), don't play the save. If you want to be President, then run for office. But if you become President, you will be held responsible for bad decisions made during your administration. You will be held accountable for by game play by your DPs during your administration. The President is the Leader of the nation. The President is where the buck stops. I'm sure you're aware of this. Please stop trying to mold this scenario into one where you can be "Teflon Ron". It's not going to work. No guts, no glory.

 

[GenMarshall]

Cyc, I am fully aware that the President is held accountable. But my main concern is the same as David's in regards to vendettas placed against presidents and/or DPs. I'm not molding anything where I or anyone can be "Teflon Ron" nor am I attempting to implement such thing. The thing I wanna see implemented is an enforcement of keeping the game and the forums civil and friendly, not bogged into nonsense vendettas and bickering that causes other citizens to lose interest in the game or become discouraged on running for president and/or the DP pool out of fear that they would get their heads bitten off.

I recall in demogames past where other posters chanted "It's a Demogame, it's fun and all that". I want to see the same spirit of having the game in Demogame to return and leave all of our past grudges and vendettas behind. We are all human, were not machines. But what grinds my gears is vendettas and grudges that are formed against a president and/or DP who made the mistake, despite the president and/or DP making a sincere effort to rectify their mistake and learned from that mistake, yet the grudges and vendettas continues on for months.

What I'd like to see more importantly, is that we all should strive and aim to be friendly and civil with one another. Not holding grudges, vendettas, and scapegoating citizens. I don't know why I bothered to return back to the Demogame, since I am having that feeling of "bussiness as usual" and the slogan "It's a demogame, it's fun and all that" would fall onto deaf ears.

If given a chance, I would gladly run for president and DP (But don't expect me to be "Teflon Ron", I've been through worse (Off Topic Forums))

 

[Cyc]

Stop worrying about bad things that haven't happen. You are going to ruin your own game, CivGeneral. I haven't seen anything that resembles vendetta here. Provolution is playing Civ4 and Ravensfire is playing Civ3, so that's covered.

Buck up. Be assertive. Be who you need to be. Everyone makes mistakes. Make note of them and move on.

 

[Falcon02]

Yup!

Honestly though, I wouldn't worry about the CoC. If multiple officials want it, let them figure it out.

-- Ravensfire

I don't know... I feel a defined CoC is appropriate, otherwise when you've got multiple officials in a turnchat who wish to pick up the game in a DP's absence there may be an additional delay as they figure out who should take up the save.


As far as the President/DP issue both have a degree of responsibility in the matter. A President has the responsibility of selecting a DP who will play the save properly. However you don't necessarily know how a DP will play and document the save before they actually play it. If a prerequisite of becoming a DP is then you must have played the save before, then it nullifies half the idea of having a DP (giving regular citizens an opportunity to participate more without holding office). So the DP has a responsibility to live up to those expectations.

Also, if a President wishes to assign a DP, they could have confirmation polls to approve the person. Thus the citizens are given an opportunity to object. This however would mean a potential DP would have to be confirmed well before a time the DP might be called upon.

Though I personally still prefer the CoC method myself. I like the consistency of 1 person playing the save so playing/documenting style is consistent. As such I feel good ability to document the events of the turnchat is important in a president.

 

[Falcon02]

Well, I went through the Archives. Got side-tracked a few times, but mainly read Constitutions.

I did enjoy the Civ3 DG VII Constitution. Very well written and pretty much covered everything. Glad that thing got finalized.

I quickly glanced at the DG VII constitution a moment ago.

I noticed the election of the President was handled by the Senate (Governors)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130149#COLF1
I'm not sure how I feel about this, I feel the President should be directly elected by the people just like other officials. Though I didn't participate in DG VII so I don't know exactly how this played out....

 

[ravensfire]

I quickly glanced at the DG VII constitution a moment ago.

I noticed the election of the President was handled by the Senate (Governors)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130149#COLF1
I'm not sure how I feel about this, I feel the President should be directly elected by the people just like other officials. Though I didn't participate in DG VII so I don't know exactly how this played out....

That was only if we didn't actually HAVE anyone run for President in the term or the President resigns mid-term. That clause only takes effect if the office is empty after an election cycle ends. Basically, it's a way to get someone in the office and keep the game flowing.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Falcon02]

That was only if we didn't actually HAVE anyone run for President in the term or the President resigns mid-term. That clause only takes effect if the office is empty after an election cycle ends. Basically, it's a way to get someone in the office and keep the game flowing.

-- Ravensfire

Ah, okay then, that makes more sense, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Cyc]

So, are we floundering here? Shall we tentatively say that we're looking at Civ3 DG7's Constitution as a basis for our game? Has anyone come up with a scenario or short game version to discuss (other than/including 5CC)?

 

[Falcon02]

I kinda don't want to go for the 5CC challenge.

I do want us to try to create a larger nation so hopefully there's more going on. But we can still try to limit ourselves beyond that so we don't end up with 70 some cities and lengthy pre-turnchats.

 

[GenMarshall]

So, are we floundering here? Shall we tentatively say that we're looking at Civ3 DG7's Constitution as a basis for our game? Has anyone come up with a scenario or short game version to discuss (other than/including 5CC)?

Might have to look at it, I may or may not been totally active in that game (I don't remember off the top of my head)

I kinda don't want to go for the 5CC challenge

Ditto

 

[Cyc]

Ok, general consensus seems to be steering us away from the 5CC style game. I've been playing around with a Pangaea on a Small or Standard map. 5 AI tribes on that seems to be working out.

Any other ideas?

 

[civplayah]

Ok, general consensus seems to be steering us away from the 5CC style game. I've been playing around with a Pangaea on a Small or Standard map. 5 AI tribes on that seems to be working out.

Any other ideas?

Standard, please.
Sounds good.