Game Starts on July 23rd???

[Falcon02]

I'm against a timely date, appointed long beforehand at random simply to please things, without taking into account when we're ready. Especially if we actually start two days earlier than that like in Iraq.

It seems like at this rate we'll be ready by the first. So lets aim for that.

July 23rd date is for ELECTIONS, the start of the game itself should be the first, as you discribed. So, I don't see you in disagreement with the date. However, resolving command structure should be a priority in preperations for elections (and I think command structure may already be finished).

As for me, I think I'm withholding my vote, since I have done very little to follow the progress of the actual legal developments, and don't have time to go through them all right now.

 

[Chieftess]

Not elections, nominations. (It's the election cycle though)

BTW, I did warn you guys earlier this month that, if the discussions continued into mid-July, that I would consider starting this game, wheter you like it or not. It's been 2 months. Do you expect to perk users interest by arguing over how a few words should be written?

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Figured I would throw in my 2 cents since I noticed this....

I obviously don't know all the details, but I scanned through the threads and forums that seemd to apply.

In my opinion the length of advance notice is too short, but I agree with getting the game started rather then prolonging the game so that certain discusssions can be completed to finallity. Just more lead time should have been given between the 'official' annoucment and the start date.

A quick look through the discussion threads don't show them to be too active, so I think most people don't care about the details (which has been my experience).

A long, drawn out, period of no game playing usually just makes people wander away from the game, most to not come back. The Constituation will always be tweaked during the game and will never, in fact, be 'perfect'. Having a good base item to work from and develope is really all that's needed. At some point it reaches where there are diminishing returns on the time spent on discussions and the overall benefit/result that are obtained from them. It seems the discussions are into that realm.

But, again, I also think the lead time for the 'drop dead' date is too short. It basically slams whatever players that have been putting countless hours into trying to tweak the rules. Any polls they established using the 'normal' voting guidelines may be wasted due to the short notice. The discussions should be allowed to reach some point of closure rather than just be yanked. Then people could at least focus on those elements that are of major importance and let the rest stay as they are for the game to start. I guess the game could always start with whatever rule set is in place and let the discussions continue as they are into the new game.

In the end, you are all just trying to have some fun and play an interesting game.

 

[Chieftess]

I never said anything about abolishing the current laws being discussed... Just a temporary groundwork will do. Shouldn't be THAT hard to post a few threads, discuss, and post instructions...

 

[Immortal]

My gravest concern is the forum movement, traditionally, nominations happen in the NEW forum, as to avoid any confusion. Unless you intend to make the move tonight, including all the constitutional discussions, and starting a citizen registry, its going to get confusing for those new players who want to start the game off in power.

Give the new people a chance, we've spent the last weeks telling them were still planning, now spontaneously jump up and say "oh BTW the rules arent in place but were having nominations in the DG4 forums for the DG5" if I were new I would be confused and put off by this madness.

 

[Duke of Marlbrough]

Isn't the current system to still have a discussion thread open for a couple days, then have a poll open for a few days....? What about the quarom rule? Is that still in place?

I don't think it should be that hard either, but making people chane gears in less then a week....?

If the set-up time was gong to be compressed, maybe the system should have been compressed as well, or at least have a firm deadline well in advance....

 

[Bootstoots]

A stay of maybe a week on the beginning of election cycles may be in order, but not any more than that. The game needs to get going, but we should get at least a constitution in place before the term starts.

 

[Falcon02]

Well.... I'll say one thing.

I can see one of two things happening.

A.) This being praised as the one trigger which got the Demogame moving and encouraging everyone to wrap up the Beuracracy

B.) This being condemned as a mistake which caused Chaos soon after DG5 started from people being forced to wrap up the consitition too quickly to produce a quality document.

I'm not taking sides on this, however I think EVERYONE has gotta admit, whether they thing more time is needed or not, that 2 months or even more is much longer then these discussions SHOULD have taken, regardless of whether we now need more time or not.

I've always been for a rather simplistic constitution, it's just a game, we shouldn't have to deal with alot of Buracracy, as I've always said # 1 rule is "follow the will of the people." Leaders with designated responcibilities, included posting numerous disscussion threads and polls to encourage citizen activity. Turnchats are always optional however I've always enjoyed them, the Civ II DG has lived without 'em.

I still think we should take the Constitution at the end of DG1 which seemed to me to work so well, and just edit that to what we now "know" and "need."

Preferably we should be able to run from one DG right into the next, no more 2 month planning periods! and hopefully no more 1 month planning periods either, but getting the DG restarted by the begaining of the next month (or sooner) after the end of the previous DG.

Anyway this whole consitution planning thing has gotten on my nerves, it should not take this long and it should not be stalling like this... and if anyone want's to bring it up my lack of participation in legal matters should not hinder that. In fact this lack of progress has increased my apathy twoards the legal details.

The one thing which gets on my nerves the most, is I was hoping to be able to get back into the DG at the start of the term... that idea seems to be fading as time goes by. I can practically garentee once college starts up again I WILL NOT be able to play the DG anymore, with a heavy class load comming up 3 Aerospace courses, one Thermodynamics course, along with a single literature course. Plus I hope to get a job within my major for the semester which will take a good bit of my free time... if things don't get started for Augest I will be forced out of the DG completely again, as once Sept. starts I'll likely be out of the game.

Sorry for going off topic... but I'm just getting rather frustated at seeing how the DG has been static much too long, and seeing how that seems to be setting itself from preventing me from full participating in yet another demogame.

 

[Rik Meleet]

@Falcon.
2 Months is too long. And frankly I wouldn't mind having the DG's follow up on eachother immediately, or with a short (1 week) break. There is no-one forbidding anyone to think and post about the constitution for the next DG in the current DG.

 

[Sarevok]

If you wan the DG to start right now, go do it but make sure there is no psychotic chaos becasue we have so many unresolved issues.

 

[Ankka]

I still haven't been told why the rules from the first <dg's have to be changed every time...

 

[DaveShack]

I still haven't been told why the rules from the first <dg's have to be changed every time...

At the end of each game, there are people who were dissatisfied with how the last game went. There are also some people who actually like legal discussions.

I'm in it for the debate, but would prefer debates about game play over endless arguments about rule variants and continuous JR's and CC's.

 

[donsig]

The best ruleset we had was the one we used to start DGIII. Why don't we just adopt the DGIII constitution and play the game?

@DaveShack: The more rules there are there more JRs and CCs and legal discussions there will be. There is nothing wrong or even distasteful in liking legal discussions. I like them. But, believe it or not, I prefer playing the game and would prefer playing the game with a minimum of legal hassles. I do see it as my duty to point out to everyone instances when we do not follow the rules we ourselves made.

to everyone: Ankka has a point. Why change the rules everytime? After 4 demogames we've have had one ruleset that worked fine. Let's return to the DGIII constitution and get DGV rolling.

 

[eyrei]

Here is my proposal to resolve this:

Nominations start tomorrow, to get things rolling. However, the leaders you elect will first be charged with completing the constitution. This is not to say that noone else can participate, but it will be the duty of all elected officials to finish the job. Once the constitution is ratified by the entire populace, creation day will take place, and not before. So, if the first group of leaders wants to play a decent portion of the game, they will be encouraged to get things done. They will also have the poltical pressure of not being seen as slack or lazy while this process is going on.

Waiting a whole other month is simply out of the question, and I believe that was CT's reasoning for imposing a deadline. Hopefully you can manage to see it as nothing more than a 'kick in the pants' to get things moving.

 

[Sarevok]

Here is my proposal to resolve this:

Nominations start tomorrow, to get things rolling. However, the leaders you elect will first be charged with completing the constitution. This is not to say that noone else can participate, but it will be the duty of all elected officials to finish the job. Once the constitution is ratified by the entire populace, creation day will take place, and not before. So, if the first group of leaders wants to play a decent portion of the game, they will be encouraged to get things done. They will also have the poltical pressure of not being seen as slack or lazy while this process is going on.

Waiting a whole other month is simply out of the question, and I believe that was CT's reasoning for imposing a deadline. Hopefully you can manage to see it as nothing more than a 'kick in the pants' to get things moving.

What for the officials that are not skilled at at the legal matters?

 

[eyrei]

What for the officials that are not skilled at at the legal matters?

They either learn to do it (which will probably benefit them in the future anyway), or they wait for the next term. This needs to get done, and right now it quite simply is progressing way to slowly.

Maybe the first 3 members of the judiciary should be charged with actually wording the rules, as these people should be skilled in 'legal matters'.

 

[Noldodan]

The best ruleset we had was the one we used to start DGIII. Why don't we just adopt the DGIII constitution and play the game?

Actually, despite some... wrinkles, I agree that the DGIII constitution was
just fine. We would need to clarify some things, such as the definition of "legal instruction" and the PI process, but other than that it worked pretty well.

 

[Cyc]

The whole plan sounds like a great idea to me, eyrei. It will be a work plan for first Term Leaders. We are really not prepared for Creation Day. I only hope the election process concludes without a hitch.

 

[Cyc]

Actually, despite some... wrinkles, I agree that the DGIII constitution was
just fine. We would need to clarify some things, such as the definition of "legal instruction" and the PI process, but other than that it worked pretty well.

I disagree. I believe the DG3 Constitution was the reason that the DG3 Justice system was so messed up. But maybe a lack of rules and definitions is what we need right now, who knows. The DG3 Con was just that to me. A con. Look how is it was manipulated by some.

 

[Immortal]

This solution still slams the door squarely shut on any new player who wishes to participate in the infancy of our nation.

Speak so highly of wanting high participation then move forward with an oligarchy first term, our most important term.