Death of a game?
- Thread starter grant2004
- Start date
Have a look in the model parliment forum. Our good buddy Provolution ruined that game too by jumping in with his jack boots on and taking control. This game would have cratered even faster than it did, if I hadn't seen the power grab and tried to stop it. The longbow poll was really "will we show the new warlord that he must listen to the people yes/no". Am I not talking to the same guy who tries to stand up for the people's rights?
Here's one of the things I was talking about. I hear you saying something is unfair all the time, but I usually don't see the unfairness. You don't get a free pass on that -- explain your position and convince others.
Surely you have more creativity than just taking my list and forming the opposites.
I will pick one out, though.
Needs of the many vs needs of the one, right? If one leaves and the game continues, this can be good for the many. If the one stays and dozens leave, then it's bad for everyone, even for the one.
Edit: found an inconsistency in the "opposites" problems...
- A boring Civ game or unfair democracy game that drives people away and causes absences
- Trying to play too many turns at one time
There is a logical inconsistency in listing both of these as problems. Playing too few turns leaves nothing to talk about in the time before the next set of turns. This makes the democracy boring, and the civ game too. The way to make both more interesting is to quickly get to a place where there is more to discuss.
This leads me to another from your list.
- Not enough time to allowed to make decisions, not even knowing how much time there is to decide, possibly missing out on contributing to a decison because a person is not on-line for two days
donsig
Low level intermediary
I know you were talking about Civ III DG I CT. I was there, remember.
(They say the first thing to go is your memory. I forget what the second thing is.) Anyway, held on average 3-4 days is not the same as every three days.Have a look in the model parliment forum. Our good buddy Provolution ruined that game too by jumping in with his jack boots on and taking control. This game would have cratered even faster than it did, if I hadn't seen the power grab and tried to stop it. The longbow poll was really "will we show the new warlord that he must listen to the people yes/no". Am I not talking to the same guy who tries to stand up for the people's rights?
DaveShack I understand Provolution. I was on TNT with him in the first Civ III MTDG, remember? And, yes, I do stand up for citizens' rights and (correct me if I'm wrong) but Provo was a citizen was he not? I am in complete agreement with you that we don't want one citizen taking over. Where you and I part ways is you have a tendancy to prevent someone taking over by taking over yourself and using your moderator powers to do so, while I prefer to let the group decide issues.
You don't see the unfairness because you refuse to see my position as having any validity at all. I say its unfair to have critical poll decisons made on the weekend and you say we can't hold up the game. I say it's unfair to make decisons in the chat and you say any advice the DP gets is better than none. I say it's unfair to appoint someone from a pool of applicants without giving people adequate time to apply and you say we can't hold up the game. There are many other examples I could dredge up but somehow I doubt you'll see the unfairness.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Yes, I could add to the list. But I understand that things I see as big problems others may see as trivial. And I also realize there are opposing problems to my problems. In order to be constructive we should list both ends of the problem, rank them in importance and then try to find a balance or happy medium between the two poles.
DaveShack said:
Guess I need to go back and watch the old Star Trek movies. The good of the many versus the good of the few (or the one) must also be balanced.
DaveShack said:
DaveShack, try not to be such a logic driven person all the time. The DG is played by people not computers. Also, try to see the bigger picture once in a while. I really disagree with your assumption that if the next few turns are boring civ-wise then there is nothing to talk about. One of the really big problems (that somehow escaped your list) is that we are terrible at long term planning. Is that becasue we are so fixiated on talking only about the upcoming turns? A system of playing two turns a day no matter what would force us to talk not only about today's two turns but about what might happen in tomorrow's turns and the turns the rest of the week. We'd finally start thinking out of the chat.
You also tend to confuse the democracy part of the game with the civ part. The democracy part should be definging what kind of civ we have. Will we be peaceful, will we be warlilke? Will we go to war for manifest destiny or because we need that iron? We usually go to war because that's how you win civ games.
DaveShack said:
DaveShack, can I help it if I'm the spokesman for the Silent Majority.
Once again I agree with much of what you say. It is boring to wait around for one person to cast a vote. It is also true that most of us make our minds up quickly. Trouble is, we've seen many times where we make that quick decison based on what we know and then voila someone who was away for a few days shows back up and gives us some information we overlooked. Sure, in a day we can make a new decision but the important part is we needed the time and broad input it allows to arrive at a good decision. (Good meaning one we all agree on.)I don't agree with delays to the game either. It is not the amount of time we allow for decison making that causes delays, it is trying to make decisons at the last minute that does this. And it doesn't do it all the time, only when we reach a crisis where we are divided. This is another major problem that escaped your original list. We have no good procedures for making a clear, legal and above all fair decision when we are divided on the question at hand.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Another problem might be the endless donsig vs. DaveShack debates
What are you talking abut. Our debates draw crowds. How long has it been since we had a two page discussion thread in this game?
How about abiding by the results of polls instead of opening a new poll to countermand the 1st one. Before you answer with the longbow sequence, remember whose poll was the 1st poll, and whose was the reversal attempt.
You've called lots of things unfair, but seldom explained why, in objective terms, you thought they were unfair. As I said, just saying it doesn't make it so, I want convincing arguments.
Falcon02
General
- Rules which are so detailed they are likely to be broken
- Rules so vague they are meaningless
- Punitive rules, that punish innocent mistakes
- Lack of rules to correct wrongdoing making it hard to maintain order.
- Rules which mandate specific time frames for action or inaction, causing inflexible time tables.
- Not enough time to allowed to make decisions, not even knowing how much time there is to decide, possibly missing out on contributing to a decison because a person is not on-line for two days
- Rules which require specific people to do certain actions
- Rules which allow people to do anything they want regarless of the rest of the group
- Rules which don't provide adequate backup in case of absences
- Treatment of innocent mistakes as major rule violations
- Treatment of major rule violations as innocent mistakes, lack of rules to correct wrongdoing whether it be the result of innocent mistakes or major rule violation
- Inflexible or incomplete instructions
- Trying to play too many turns at one time
- Denial of advice to the person playing the game / Use of the chat to disenfranchise those who will not or cannot attent it.
- Rudeness, that doesn't otherwise break forum rules
- Playing vanilla when most activity is on expansions / Excluding those without newer versions from participating
- Players who care more about their favorite issue than they do about the health of the overall game
- People who disregard other people's views and drive them from the game
- Endless discussion and arguments of issues without actions to fix those problems
- More focus on whether a rule is technically broken or not, than focus on whether the end result was damaging or not
- More focus on playing a perfect Civ game than a good democracy game
- Too little Role Playing going on, too much focus on the actual Civ game with little to no flavor.
- Too much Role Playing where the RPG turns into an economic sim, and just about seperates itself from the main game.
Okay... that's my best attempt to fairly combine Donsig's and Daveshack's lists together.
There were a few items I eliminated, because I felt they weren't legitimate problems that went to the root causes of issues, and some I reworded to get at what I felt was more the point of the issue, or elaborate on the concern. Also a couple I opted not to seperate into two bullets since I felt they were too tied together, or simply put, as far as I could see it, there wasn't much of a middle ground between the two.
I also added two items as to the extent of Role Playing (both extremes)
Another problem might be the endless donsig vs. DaveShack debates
What are you talking abut. Our debates draw crowds. How long has it been since we had a two page discussion thread in this game?
I agree they're quite entertaining, I think they've covered a lot of the important points that we'll need to sort out for the next DG, I'm not sure where I fall on most of the issues though, I've only experienced this DG, so I'm likely to vote for choices which are a bit different from what we've seen from this one.
I'd tend to favor more vague rules. I think that would be the best system given an active judiciary which factors intent and impact heavily into their rulings. One thing I'll want to try in the next DG is taking a seat on the bench, likely a boring job, but it's probably one of the most important ones when a crisis does arise.
We need to have a minimum time before a play session can start, so that there can be discussion and then a relatively precise start time(+/- 2 hours) for the play session posted by the DP well in advance. If people running discussions and polls know well enough in advance when the decision is due by there shouldn't be sticky situations like we saw this game.
I'm definitely going to vote for a vanilla version when this comes up everyone who has a version of civ 4 can play a vanilla game, if the population available is a primary concern we don't want to knock out a good portion of the interested players right off the bat by making them incapable of viewing the save.
I know we had at least one new player this game who was very interested in map making and naming geographic features, while it was certainly necessary to explain to him how the DG worked, I wish this had been gone about in a better way so as not to create a hostile environment, having a favorite issue isn't a bad thing.
I think we need to set up some sort of system so that there are metagame reasons for making bad, or at least unconventional moves in game. That will give us more choices to make for each turn, do we vote for the smart thing in game, or the thing which will help us in the metagame. This should increase how interesting the game is by making it more active, preventing us from becoming a hegemon in game, and hopefully with a larger number of controversial decisions to make we'll learn a more civil manner of making them.
We definitely need to get rid of rules like that, at the start of this game I was interested in naming cities, but was thrown off by a law requiring the chieftain to head that process. Thankfully Methos was a very wise chieftain and this didn't become a major stumbling block for the game. Last month the elections didn't happen because the chieftain was required to post the election polls, there were at least three citizens who noticed the delay and did nothing to correct it because of the law in place (myself included).
I think the future of the Demogame (which I never really wanted to play due to it's complexity) lies in the format of the SG Pharoah...
Here's what I see.
At the begining of the game, have a list of Citizens and a Chief. Then, hold elections for each Ministry position. These positions will be held until they are voted out of office, or they resign. Every turnset, there is a referndum on each minister and the Chief, where they are either re-confirmed, or voted out.
For the fun of it, different Government civics could add flavour here as to when/if elections are held, and the majority number needed to pass. It could also affect the powers of the officals/citizens.
In addtion, there is a lottery each turnset, and from the citizens pool, governers for each city are chosen, and they can do whatever they want in that city for that turnset. Of course, there would be limits here, as choices could bring them into competition with the wishes of advisors, as well as other cities...I could see some serious bidding going on..."I want the Zeus HERE!"
The Citizens themselves would have the job of looking on and discussing, what to do next, and trying to influence the Governers/Ministers/Chief.
I think the biggest point here is that while creating a system is important, it's valuable to remember human nature is not always...erm...perfect. The conflict that arises with self-interest is a natural part of such a social experiment, and therefore cannot (and is best not) surpressed.
I truly do believe this would work well here, escpecially drawing the SG crowd, as this format would not be as rigid as the present one.
Here's what I see.
At the begining of the game, have a list of Citizens and a Chief. Then, hold elections for each Ministry position. These positions will be held until they are voted out of office, or they resign. Every turnset, there is a referndum on each minister and the Chief, where they are either re-confirmed, or voted out.
For the fun of it, different Government civics could add flavour here as to when/if elections are held, and the majority number needed to pass. It could also affect the powers of the officals/citizens.
In addtion, there is a lottery each turnset, and from the citizens pool, governers for each city are chosen, and they can do whatever they want in that city for that turnset. Of course, there would be limits here, as choices could bring them into competition with the wishes of advisors, as well as other cities...I could see some serious bidding going on..."I want the Zeus HERE!"
The Citizens themselves would have the job of looking on and discussing, what to do next, and trying to influence the Governers/Ministers/Chief.
I think the biggest point here is that while creating a system is important, it's valuable to remember human nature is not always...erm...perfect. The conflict that arises with self-interest is a natural part of such a social experiment, and therefore cannot (and is best not) surpressed.
I truly do believe this would work well here, escpecially drawing the SG crowd, as this format would not be as rigid as the present one.
donsig
Low level intermediary
How about abiding by the results of polls instead of opening a new poll to countermand the 1st one. Before you answer with the longbow sequence, remember whose poll was the 1st poll, and whose was the reversal attempt.
You've called lots of things unfair, but seldom explained why, in objective terms, you thought they were unfair. As I said, just saying it doesn't make it so, I want convincing arguments.
Ok, DaveShack I will try to explain this one one more time. First a history lesson:
7/3/7 6:05 pm DaveShack poll: Should we immediately send the available full-strength keshik to kill the longbow outside Berlin?
7/6/7 5:42 pm grant2004 poll: Shall we attack the longbowman with our 2nd keshik should the 1st fail?
76/7 7:29 pm Provolution poll: This poll is made to reverse the forced move of keshiks on a suicide mission across the river near Berlin.
7/7/7 6:52 pm donsig poll: Should Joe Harker's keshik move be made mandatory?
7/7/7 8:18 pm DaveShack poll: Should we attack the longbow with the full-strength Keshik, before end of turn, using a single attack move so as to get 67% odds, notwithstanding the results of any previous poll?
7/8/7 12:31 am donsig poll: Citizen's initiative: Should the Longbow attack V2 poll be disregarded?
To summarize, DaveShack first asked if we should attack a specific longbow with a specific keshik. grant2004 then asked if we should attack the same longbow with second keshik if the first attack failed. grant2004's poll was therefore a different subject and did not conflict with DaveShack's poll (though it assumed a result of that poll). Provolution then posted a poll to overturn these two polls. After two votes were cast he asked to have the poll closed, effectively withdrawing the poll. I then posted a poll asking if the keshik in DaveShack's poll should attack in a specific way. Since there was more than one way DaveShack's keshik could attack and DaveShack's poll did not specify an attack path, my poll only sought to clarify how DaveShack's poll should be carried out. It did not seek to undo his poll. Not even two hours later DaveShack posted a poll in an effort to make my poll meaningless. His use of the phrase notwithstanding the results of any previous poll makes this clear. Then next day I posted another poll to ask if the last DaveShack poll should be ignored.
Ok, DaveShack, here's the unfair part. Here we are, three months later and you (DaveShack) are UNFAIRLY implying a couple things that are simply not true. You imply that you were the first one to post a poll about the longbow attack and I subsequently tried to trump your poll instead of letting the people decide. I did not do that. I posted a poll to clarify how your original poll should be carried out, in an attempt to let the people playing the game decide on a controversy that had erupted. You then did the very same thing you accuse me of and posted a poll to try to overturn my poll instead of letting the people decide the issue! This is one example of what I've been calling unfair DaveShack. i won't even go into the other facts surrounding this case but they include DaveShack's attempt to use a legal technicality to get his way (something he cries out loudly against anyone else doing) and rushing to play the save before relevant and controversial plls conclude.
Any opinions on this?
Haven't had a chance to fully absorb it, will probably post on it later.
We're making a list of things to improve, not re-arguing the points.
I don't see having a different opinion and trying to act on it as being unfair. A justice ruling contrary to the clear meaning of the law would be unfair. So would deliberately misquoting someone, or intentionally posting incorrect information as fact. These last two items are reportable items btw.
I said, quite factually, that my poll was the first poll on the issue. That is not in dispute.
We both ended up trying to post polls to overrule the other. This is also a fact which is not in dispute.
This exchange reminded me of several rules which I think are mandatory. Stated simply, the minimum rules for any demogame include (but are not limited to):
- Citizenship is open to all.
- Polls about individuals must be private.
- Game play must be conducted according to demogame rules.
- No civ-game cheating is allowed.
How do we keep incidents like the Keshik / Longbow saga from happening? Here are a few ideas.
The whole thing started because we had an official being unresponsive to citizen input, in a very rude and arrogant way. The people being stomped need to have a fair but efficient and quick way to handle this type of problem. I thought polling the issue would be sufficient, but maybe not.
We need to be more definitive about playing ahead. Everyone who touches the save needs to know they can't make moves, and if they do see something to not discuss it. Everyone also needs to know if they see others posting material from an illegal move, that it should be reported (and deleted), not propagated. Failing to emphasize and enforce this rule cost a lot.
We agree that polling standards are necessary, but have conflicts over what the standards should be and how they should be enforced. I prefer a standard which is very lax on technical issues (who posts, duration, interpretation, first post edit, etc.), makes it easy for a small number of people (as low as 1) to claim subjectively that it is unfair, and includes a final arbitrator to handle the case of someone unfairly claiming a poll is unfair in order to hold up a decision.
IMHO, Donsig made a good summary of the two points of view:
A "perfect" Civ game or a "fair" demo game.
Both increased enough to be now two different games.
And the "conciliation" of the two options is nothing more than a boring thing
to all (by opposite reasons to each group).
It's just a matter of "my" fun and "your" fun. Let's assume it.
So, if the "perfects" want to make a new game with simple rules and open to
debate about the game (and just about the game) please count me in.
Best regards,
A "perfect" Civ game or a "fair" demo game.
Both increased enough to be now two different games.
And the "conciliation" of the two options is nothing more than a boring thing
to all (by opposite reasons to each group).
It's just a matter of "my" fun and "your" fun. Let's assume it.
So, if the "perfects" want to make a new game with simple rules and open to
debate about the game (and just about the game) please count me in.
Best regards,
donsig
Low level intermediary
The most sensible post I've seen in a long time.
Count me it to the game that wants to emphasize the demogame part of it.
Hey, here's a challenge: We could try running two simultaneous DG's - one for those of you who want to focus on civ and one for those of us who want to focus on the democracy game part. We could start with the same save. The contest wouldn't be which team gets the highest civ score or fastest win, but the one that maintains interest longer.
Falcon02
General
A "Perfect" Civ game is what the Succession Games and such are for.
The Demogame is about working together in a fair way using a governmental structure.
As to the Donsig/Daveshack Debate...
Daveshack was/is right as far as Joe's move... it was invalid as it was played outside of the scheduled window and it was an irreversible move.
However on the other hand, the knowledge Joe gained was/is documented elsewhere, and can be consistantly proven with the mechanics of the game. The reason for retriving that information was not really the issue (in my mind), the fact of the matter was it can and was retrived without an irreversible move in the game.
What if someone honestly did not see any referance to Joe's move, and saw the potential move and did the legitimate research and then posted it. Would that also have been "invalid" and "tainted"? Motivations and previous knowledge can't truely be tested like that. So it's not fair to say that something is invalid because their motivation was to show something which was shown illegally...
Also, Daveshack is also right with the root cause. People were confused by the official's plan of action and asked him to elaborate. The official's only response was essentially "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing, I've played alot of Civilization." If the official had simply explained their reasoning, giving the citizens a chance understand and learn from the official or offer a counter argument to the official, the whole longbow issue would not have occured.
What counts as playing ahead has always been a source of some contention. Some people feel you can do anything so long as you don't go to the next turn. Other people (myself included) feel that you shouldn't do anything you cannot reverse, which in general includes moves, attacks, etc (in Civ IV trades have been excluded as it's no longer as transparent for decision making as it was for Civ III).
Along with disagreement as to what should and shouldn't be allowed when viewing the save is the bigger problem of ignorance of those rules. The majority of the transgressions I've seen have been by people new to the game who just don't realize there are restrictions on what you can and can not do with the save. Or they think they understand the restrictions but never read the laws about it.
This then also goes to the problems of laws becoming a daunting hurdle for new people joining the game, as they feel they have to read pages of pseudo-legalese to get an idea of how the game works.
Simplicity is good for new comers, but complexity is required to ensure clarity and trying to eliminate exploitation. We have never fully balanced these two out, somehow I doubt we ever will.
The Demogame is about working together in a fair way using a governmental structure.
As to the Donsig/Daveshack Debate...
Daveshack was/is right as far as Joe's move... it was invalid as it was played outside of the scheduled window and it was an irreversible move.
However on the other hand, the knowledge Joe gained was/is documented elsewhere, and can be consistantly proven with the mechanics of the game. The reason for retriving that information was not really the issue (in my mind), the fact of the matter was it can and was retrived without an irreversible move in the game.
What if someone honestly did not see any referance to Joe's move, and saw the potential move and did the legitimate research and then posted it. Would that also have been "invalid" and "tainted"? Motivations and previous knowledge can't truely be tested like that. So it's not fair to say that something is invalid because their motivation was to show something which was shown illegally...
Also, Daveshack is also right with the root cause. People were confused by the official's plan of action and asked him to elaborate. The official's only response was essentially "Don't worry, I know what I'm doing, I've played alot of Civilization." If the official had simply explained their reasoning, giving the citizens a chance understand and learn from the official or offer a counter argument to the official, the whole longbow issue would not have occured.
What counts as playing ahead has always been a source of some contention. Some people feel you can do anything so long as you don't go to the next turn. Other people (myself included) feel that you shouldn't do anything you cannot reverse, which in general includes moves, attacks, etc (in Civ IV trades have been excluded as it's no longer as transparent for decision making as it was for Civ III).
Along with disagreement as to what should and shouldn't be allowed when viewing the save is the bigger problem of ignorance of those rules. The majority of the transgressions I've seen have been by people new to the game who just don't realize there are restrictions on what you can and can not do with the save. Or they think they understand the restrictions but never read the laws about it.
This then also goes to the problems of laws becoming a daunting hurdle for new people joining the game, as they feel they have to read pages of pseudo-legalese to get an idea of how the game works.
Simplicity is good for new comers, but complexity is required to ensure clarity and trying to eliminate exploitation. We have never fully balanced these two out, somehow I doubt we ever will.
