I think some key players in Term V should look into the various developments this term, and compare these to what worked better in Term IV, this Demogame.
A lot of players had some fun in Term IV, look at the postings.
I see a tendency in the retrospect analysis to blame everyone else, especially those who are not here to defend themselves. I also see some players that has been circling around as pirhanas, just biting at certain people from the side to sow disrespect, and then come in with full force as the depopulation set in, finishing off remaining opposition. It is easy to criticize if you have no alternative to compare to.
This is indeed a sad example of a half functioning demogame where the repair crew has been sniped off from a distance with cyncial, delusioned posters that had no intentions to improve on the flaws we had in the game, and rather direct personal crititcism at those doing a work for the game, ripping apart the existing structure with a constant wave of criticism in place of adding substitute solutions. As if they wanted DG5 to fail in order to make a point for drafting the new constitution for DG 6. I see samples of late game developments as more targeted for jousting for moral high ground and leadership positions for the creation of demogame 5, than to create a worthy environment for concluding a game that was working in some areas. I actually have observed posters who has offered almost no counsel, but swamped the game with a tsunami of negative criticism without offering alternatives, and then present their commercially bundled savior package for the next demogame, presenting active DG players as mislead idiots, dyslectics, inferior pollers, poor civplayers and in general people of a less moral calibre than the double standard cast that can stand above their own actions and statements, for the good of Demogame 6, where these plan to have a strong hand on the constitution.
These could not care about the entertainment value of the game any less, but to degrade people right and left, offer no alternatives, present themselves as neutral professional experts, make the coup de grace to DG5 and then present themselves as with the statements like..."I was right all the way, I was just waiting to say that you all where utterly wrong and I was perfectly right, please bend over, submit, give up further arguments since we took your recognition away and watch the few of us write this brilliant Demogame that will take us several months to write, the Demogame of Demogames and all other demogamers would look at me with envy, and consider me the savior of all demogamers".
I see very few here stand forwards and balance out what went good and wrong, since some of us, for a time, had god fun with the demogame. That someone sought out to ruin it in order to prove they where right on the constitution or other issues is a different matter, I also see some bitterness coincided with the US Presidential election. I think the last terms smear campaigns has really depopulated the game, as well as removing some strategic options. The slow pace of the game also give some people more surplus energy to fight, insult and drag down people instead of playing the game. Some people prefer more infighting than game strategy discussions.
I admit I may be convoluted and verbose at times, but I can see some fundamental flaws in other posters as well, without seeking out to bring them down for semantics, misspellings. In fact, I prefer Ashburnhams preference for public polling, ideological competition and principal discussion structure for Civ3 related strategy dilemmas, than the active 1-2 liner poisonous remarks only targeted on dragging down people, legalese minimalization, rigid idealist principles and in general a blind campaigning for unwanted rules, probably meant for building the support base for a DG6 draft.
I may not have delivered all that I wanted to do here, but I managed to get fine along with a large number of people, entertain them, let them entertain me, and create some material together driving a strategy game forwards. I think some of the legal and principal issues surrounding the game, as well as envy directed on people having some fun making "unnecessary" plans ruined much of the fun.
If someone looks for guineapigs for testing out their paralegal capabilities, they should for for a more clean cut legal game simulation, not abuse someones Civ3 interests, and maybe we could have two parallel DGs, one more civic and one more militaristic.
I can tolerate many things in life, but double standards is not one of them.
