[DG2] - Ratification process

[DaveShack]

Here's another good one. One or more people (other than me) get a lot of input on the ruleset, and go write out the rules. Then we're going to open up a new forum, and present the draft rules to the crowd of people who show up. Then what should we do?

• Open it up for a discussion and revision period of a week, then poll?
• Jump straight to polling, assuming only the people who are here now care about it?
• Already have it ratified ourselves and just say these are the rules, live with them?

On the ratification itself, how should it be polled?

• Section by Section, to allow people to dissent from a specific area while approving the rest.
• All in one, take it or leave it, and we hope the majority take it?

Also, what criteria do we want for ratification?

And another

• Jump into the game when the time is right, with whatever rules are ready?
• Resist the temptation to start, even though we know it will miss the obvious Jan 2nd start?

 

[dutchfire]

Open it up for a discussion and revision period of a week, then poll

Section by Section, to allow people to dissent from a specific area while approving the rest

And we should only start when we're ready, mainly on the number of participants side.

 

[DaveShack]

And we should only start when we're ready, mainly on the number of participants side.

Meaning we set a goal, such as 20 active people, and only start the game itself when we reach that goal? The concept isn't all that bad, but I don't know if that would work, since the elections and launching the game are typically what cause the big surge in participation.

 

[ravensfire]

Given that this ruleset is being written off the forums, I'd like to see at some point a full draft posted here, and the opportunity for full input to be made. Present a revised version of that, then put the entire ruleset up for ratification and get it done. Have all the FAQ and help threads ready, assuming we have people to write them.

Then and only then do we have the announcement for DG 2 posted. Put up the nomination threads, with a period of a 7 days for nominations (FIRST TERM ONLY) and discussions. This will allow new players to get involved with the game, campaign for offices and allow even stragglers to get into the mix!

After 4 days, post the first run of game config polls.

After 3 more days, post the election polls and the config runoff polls.

3 days later, we're in great shape to start the madness! I would suggest that, if we happen to start in mid-late January, that we allow the first term to run through the end of February. We should NOT rush to try and get things ready for a Jan. 2 start. We don't have the time, and too many people are distracted with the holidays. Focus on a mid-January start.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ice2k4]

Section by section polling.

I'm not so sure how we should go about when to ratify. We could wait till people join and poll, but then again if we set a goal, and it gets a little slow starting up, many people who joined up will get bored waiting and leave. I guess the best thing is for us to vote on it. Announce the game, and within two weeks of the announcement start elections. In those two weeks citizens will have the time to review the laws and point out anything. If they point out something that we realize is wrong, we can amend it before the game even starts. I'm not so sure about starting time either, since the end of January is usually a big month for regents, midterms etc. in America.

 

[DaveShack]

Given that this ruleset is being written off the forums, I'd like to see at some point a full draft posted here, and the opportunity for full input to be made. Present a revised version of that, then put the entire ruleset up for ratification and get it done. Have all the FAQ and help threads ready, assuming we have people to write them.

Just to confirm I understand your position, you want the "core team" to ratify the rules and present that as an accomplished fact to the "casual vets & newcomers", right?

That does seem like a good idea, but I was worried about the perception of dividing the people into an elite class who had input to the rules and a lower class who didn't.

 

[Bertie]

My past participation in the Demo Game has been minimal, and I doubt if I’ll take much, if any, part in this one, so take the following idea with a huge grain of salt. Might I suggest we write a bare bones constitution (so bare bones that all that it does is outline what the game is, how it is organized, and general rules of play); ratify that; and then develop the actual Code of Laws that will guide game play as part of the process of playing the game?

What I envision is for the constitution is:

• it will state what the game is and how we will play together (Civ3 DG7 had some nice language for this, although I’d shorten it);
• state that everyone who plays is a citizen, registration in the game thread is necessary, and that all citizens have equal rights and responsibilities in playing the game;
• that the citizens on a monthly basis will elect officials to take charge in organizing certain aspects of the game play for that term;
• enumerate the offices (president, domestic secretary, war secretary, chief judge, whatever) but not the duties of the offices – that will be done in the COL;
• discuss how laws are made (many will be sponsored by an elected official but any citizen anytime can propose a law);
• discuss in general terms whatever needs to be said about polling , playing the save, and so forth.

In other words, put only enough in the constitution so it’s clear what the game is and how it’s supposed to proceed.

Then in the first term (which perhaps should be 2 months because it will take time to get things rolling), we elect officials. We can either generate the save at the beginning of first term or before the game begins.

So there we’ll be with the game started, standing around, scratching our caveman behinds, wondering what to do. How do we get our settler to move? What does the president do? The chief justice?

The first order of business for will for each official to develop a job description and list of duties, and propose these as laws. Citizens interested in one or more particular offices can volunteer their help. (Perhaps at some point we’ll pass a law calling them “deputies.”) Different office holders may want to claim some of the same duties and responsibilities and can offer competing laws. Citizens can select the version they prefer; or more likely, through discussion we’ll develop some sort of compromise.

The virtue of this is we can develop law on an “as needed” basis. At first we only need to agree on who plays the save, how long game turns should be, how settlers and warriors move, how to select our first city location, how to decide what to research, and perhaps some military and diplomatic strategy. Our first laws will address these concerns. As new situations arise (trade), we’ll develop laws to handle those. Part of the responsibility of our officials (and citizens) will be to anticipate such situations, and propose laws to handle them. If we screw up and write bad laws initially, we can easily correct them as the game progresses.

The upside is we get to start the game sooner (probably January 2). Also, this will be a natural inducement to get those interested mainly in the governmental aspect of the demo game to become more interested in the mechanics of game play; and those who are here mainly to play the game to get more involved in writing laws. The major downside to this is we’ve never played the game this way so no doubt the first few weeks are going to be chaotic.

Actually there are several other downsides but I’ll let someone else enumerate them.