Citizen Pulse : Are you satisfied with the democracy?

[DaveShack]

How active and helpful can you be if you can't even open the save? Even right now, there aren't many screenshots, so trying to be a deputy with little screenshots is a bit hard. We should do an informal poll now...

One of the points of my alternative government proposal is that you can even be President without opening the save. There would be strategy positions who run discussions and polls and set the overall strategy according to WOTP, and tactical positions who use the save to convert the strategy to specific actions.

We have also had several posts in this discussion about putting actual teeth into standards on what has to be posted in the information threads. Look at this term's FA thread for a concrete example of how it ought to be done.

 

[DaveShack]

No C3C for me, please. Is it that much trouble to use another disk (gasp!), just so that we can include everyone, rather than make them pay $10+ ? Plus, even C3C has it's bugs. SGLs are way too random, AI does not make armies, Age of Science does not work, and the sub bug is a bit annoying. Vanilla 1.29f is by far the most stable version of civ out there.

The problem with running vanilla is that we've done that, 5 times already. Something new is needed for the short attention span crowd.

Here's another idea -- what about running with DyP on top of Vanilla. It has even more goodies than C3C does, to the point that if you've never played it before you'd wonder if it's even the same game as Civ3.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

The problem with running vanilla is that we've done that, 5 times already. Something new is needed for the short attention span crowd.

Here's another idea -- what about running with DyP on top of Vanilla. It has even more goodies than C3C does, to the point that if you've never played it before you'd wonder if it's even the same game as Civ3.

I think a DyP game would be a great way to retain the short-attention span, instant-gratification-without-effort crowd. Not that it is a high priority of mine. One thing is needed for sure: more nations!

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I also spot the irony that build queues are rarely even discussed in the forums. Thus, the improvements and units of an ENTIRE nation could be determined by 1 person. That's the one thing that governors rarely do - creating discussions. Prove to me that having a governor determine the build queue of an entire nation is the will of the people! Maybe we should make this a requirement for the domestic advisor. Setting up a discussion thread for the provincial build queues, and the governors follow them.

This is what the government threads are for, CT. If anything, we should make sure to train all citizens how to use them to get what they want.

You do raise a valid point however, as build queues usually end up being taken for granted without much thought. If we decide to follow a model where a leader's election grants a mandate on decisions without constnt direct polling, then this may become a non-issue.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Sorry in advance to choose your post to make this point...

OK, I've been reading about this mythical decision in the chat which conflicts with the forum long enough.

Prove it please. Show me a decision made in the chat which disagreed with the forum. Since y'all think they are so commonplace, show me 10. Show me one where it wasn't already the right of the DP to make a decision, chat attendees or not. Show me one where it actually caused harm to someone. What ever happened to the general principle "no harm, no foul"?

Dave, I notice you chose to defend the chat only against the allegations of conflicting instructions. To me, the debate between yourself and donsig was a draw, as I don't think a clear victory can go to either side.

However, can you defend the chat in regards to the time it steals from practical involvement in the game? Here, we have a group of spectators engaging our principal turnplayer in conversation while he/she is trying to concentrate on instructions and forward the game. The turnplayer also has to make a move, jump out of Civ3 to report it and then go back to the game hundreds of times per chat! This ritual goes on and on, sometimes for three hours or more, and besides the advancement of the game, we get not much more than talk of camel spit and other such nonsense.

Total time wasted in this particular example:

The DP: At least an hour. I would imagine that without all of jumping back and forth to the chat, a DP could cut game play sessions by nearly half! Not to mention being able to better concentrate on instructions. This time could then be used toward fashioning an informative and comprehensive turn summary to the citizenry without feeling as pressed for time.

Spectators: 3 hours each. Rather than living it in real time, these people can consult the turn summary and use their newly-found time to solidify their role in the game. Anyone who complains about time being an impediment to their involvement, yet parks themselves in a turnchat for the duration, is not using his time wisely.

Basically, the essence of this game is, and always has been, the formulation of laws and how to use them to carry out game of Civ. There should almost always be a sense of decorum and due process in this game, as we try to emulate a mock goverment consisting of individuals with widely varying policy views. To me, the chat does not do much to enhance this very important aspect of the game.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

The problem with running vanilla is that we've done that, 5 times already. Something new is needed for the short attention span crowd.

Here's another idea -- what about running with DyP on top of Vanilla. It has even more goodies than C3C does, to the point that if you've never played it before you'd wonder if it's even the same game as Civ3.

DyP is fine with me, as is any mod (ok, well not some fantasy one). I understand plain vanilla has been done 5 times, but that doesn't mean we can't do a variant. A 5CC, Always War (no foreign minister), etc, or even a small variant could impact us. But I would really enjoy DyP..

We have also had several posts in this discussion about putting actual teeth into standards on what has to be posted in the information threads. Look at this term's FA thread for a concrete example of how it ought to be done.

Yes, that thread is very organized and even someone without civ could participate. However, not every minister and governor do that.

 

[Black_Hole]

how large id the current version of DyP? Last time I checked it was around 80 mb which is alot for dialup people

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Vanilla civ version of DyP (v1.01r) is 65 mbs. Yes, it's a lot, but it does spice up the game, and if you have, say, a 50 kb/sec download speed it's only 22 minutes. Even with less download speed, if you let it run overnight, it's not that bad.

 

[Strider]

Varients will dissuade to many people from the game, and DyP will be even worst. If we do decide to go with DyP, the only one's who will play in the game are those from the past games, and those who already have DyP on there computer.

No varients, no mods, lets just go for Conquests.

 

[classical_hero]

There does need to be some shake up of this game because playing the same game over and over goes get doring. No TC and a merger of the Trade and FA would be good to see what happens.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Varients will dissuade to many people from the game, and DyP will be even worst. If we do decide to go with DyP, the only one's who will play in the game are those from the past games, and those who already have DyP on there computer.

No varients, no mods, lets just go for Conquests.

It seems I'm outnumbered...

Conquests adds stuff. DyP adds stuff. Mods add stuff. They all add stuff, even a variant. Let's choose the one that includes the most people.

PS: Variants don't dissuade many people. Asking them to pay money (which is what we're technically doing with Conquests) to be a minister or governor dissuades people. I'll put up an informal poll on Vanilla vs. Conquests.

 

[DaveShack]

It seems I'm outnumbered...

Conquests adds stuff. DyP adds stuff. Mods add stuff. They all add stuff, even a variant. Let's choose the one that includes the most people.

PS: Variants don't dissuade many people. Asking them to pay money (which is what we're technically doing with Conquests) to be a minister or governor dissuades people. I'll put up an informal poll on Vanilla vs. Conquests.

If there were an easy way to do it, I would take care of the money problem personally. Well, within reason anyway... for the ones who are actually going to be active in the game...

my wife would kill me if I bought a bunch of copies of Conquests, but I'd like to be able to...

As for the download time, I said during last pregame, let's get someone from each continent to burn some CDs with whatever mod we decide to use and distribute it snail mail, if it helps. I can easily eat $20 to ship 5 copies of DyP, any other volunteers?

 

[DaveShack]

Dave, I notice you chose to defend the chat only against the allegations of conflicting instructions. To me, the debate between yourself and donsig was a draw, as I don't think a clear victory can go to either side.

Yes, it has been pretty even all along. I'm against saying "never have a chat" and he's against saying "always have a chat". Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any middle ground.

The turnplayer also has to make a move, jump out of Civ3 to report it and then go back to the game hundreds of times per chat! This ritual goes on and on, sometimes for three hours or more, and besides the advancement of the game, we get not much more than talk of camel spit and other such nonsense.

Well, if the DP is keeping a detailed enough log of the game, jumping out of the game that many times is a given anyway. Sometimes the DP avoids a major mistake by reporting an event which is about to happen and getting called on it by someone in the chat. Sometimes the DP ignores what is said and goes ahead to make the mistake anyway, like the failed wonder cascade while CG was President, where we ended up with something like 300 wasted shields because he forgot to use the technique of using a double switch to get the one with more shields invested on the other wonder. (no offense CG...)

Camel spit and other bodily fluids need to be banned from the chat. This is an easy fix, if we had a chat op who would kick people instead of joining in. Where do you think the term camel spit came from in the first place?

Basically, the essence of this game is, and always has been, the formulation of laws and how to use them to carry out game of Civ. There should almost always be a sense of decorum and due process in this game, as we try to emulate a mock goverment consisting of individuals with widely varying policy views. To me, the chat does not do much to enhance this very important aspect of the game.

I will agree that the sense of decorum is not there, either in the forum or in the chat. The younger participants can be excused for not exercizing something they haven't learned yet, but we have some mature people here who seem to be unable to pass up any chance to fight. At least some of us know how to disagree politely. A little evenhanded moderation might help, except that the online equivalent of a time-out has the unfortunate side effect of damaging progress in the game.

 

[Chieftess]

Vanilla civ version of DyP (v1.01r) is 65 mbs. Yes, it's a lot, but it does spice up the game, and if you have, say, a 50 kb/sec download speed it's only 22 minutes. Even with less download speed, if you let it run overnight, it's not that bad.

Not to mention that you NEED to have the DyP pack to even look at the save. We'll have very little participation if we require everyone to have DyP installed. (not everyone does) I don't play it because I don't like having all of those techs bunched into 1 screen. Besides, it's a completely new strategy, and even if newer players download it, they may be giving advice/voting for vanilla Civ3 tactics.

 

[Black_Hole]

Not to mention that you NEED to have the DyP pack to even look at the save. We'll have very little participation if we require everyone to have DyP installed. (not everyone does) I don't play it because I don't like having all of those techs bunched into 1 screen. Besides, it's a completely new strategy, and even if newer players download it, they may be giving advice/voting for vanilla Civ3 tactics.

yeh, from what it sounds like DyP would change strategy more than conquests would....
I would prefer to stay with conquests... but even if we go conquests we can still have a variant.... personally 5CC or Always War would be the best

 

[Provolution]

I also found the ministry positions to be something we could change next term.

Merge Foreign and Trade (both need to handle the trade screen, and bundle deals)
Merge Culture and Science (both intertwines techs and wonders)
Partitition Domestic into Finance (sliders and gold requests), Industry (build-queues and workers) and Colonial Office (settlers, new cities, explorers, designated scout military units and navy in peacetime).

In line with Daveshacks proposal, the minister would be strategic and the deputy tactical. Surely we need to change from running mates to runner up being the deputy, internal conflicts between candidates can be so deep that ministries cannot operate.
We actually saw great success in Term IV, in spite of what a handful critics said that term, it worked well and participation was high. Term V is the worst so far this game.

WE amy also consider making ministries linked to techs, and not cover this amount of turns per month, rather a technology target that impacts the game, and then have a longer discussion on how to redirect our strategy, the turn-based division per month is too arbitrary to make sense, so is the blind division into months. We should arrange terms around key technologies impacting the new ministries.

 

[DaveShack]

Besides, it's a completely new strategy, and even if newer players download it, they may be giving advice/voting for vanilla Civ3 tactics.

That's the whole point, to play something different so that there is excitement. I agree that conquests would be better than DyP for that purpose, just offering a no $ solution.

 

[Black_Hole]

Also just so everyone knows ginger_ale created a poll here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=108833
For informally deciding between conquests and regular civ

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Not to mention that you NEED to have the DyP pack to even look at the save. We'll have very little participation if we require everyone to have DyP installed. (not everyone does) I don't play it because I don't like having all of those techs bunched into 1 screen. Besides, it's a completely new strategy, and even if newer players download it, they may be giving advice/voting for vanilla Civ3 tactics.

Thank you for pointing this out.

If you we use Conquests, you would NEED to have Conquests to open the save.

The only way we can let everyone view the save is if we use vanilla. Simple.


And DaveShack, I would be very willing to do that, but it's not possible for me. Tis a good idea.

 

[donsig]

It's not like I changed those queues on purpose.

Yeah, I know, CT. It was a mistake. The same type of mistakes you made in an earlier demogame as President.

DG1T3 was not about the chat not getting their way. It was about you not following an instruction to trade medicine. IIRC, it was something that came up out of the clear blue in-game. (Even still, you wound up trading it the next turnchat).

Your memory is not so correct (again) CT. As you (correctly) point out, selling medicine came up *out of the clear blue in-game* but there was no instruction to sell medicine. Unless, of course, you consider something someone at the chat said to be an instruction. And, yes, we did sell medicine next chat because that's what was decided in the forums.

I will continue bringing these things up in the hopes future DGers will not make the same mistakes. The good things that came out of the medicine selling debacle were 1) we learned how dangerous chat spot votes can be and 2) we learned it is best to leave play stoppage to the discretion of the DP. (That chat witnessed the fiasco of the silly DP calling a spot vote on whether to stop play or continue. The vote was to continue but the DP stopped anyway.)

Oh, And Dave SHack, there was no point in stopping play to go to the forums to prevent the change from Copernicus to the cathedral. It had already been discussed and polled in favor of the change. Still in all, I thought it was stupid. Now would you have backed me up if I had disregarded a stupid but polled instruction? Or do you advocate disregarding only stupid instructions that are aren't polled?