How the demogame is going

[blackheart]

Well, Ravensfire. When I was DP I strictly abide by the rule that instructions should be posted an hour before the TC. That didn't work out either and it certainly didn't stop people from posting past the dead-line. Ignoring instructions that were posted later than T - 1 hour and even me filing an official CC had not the effect I'd hoped for; clear, well thought of and on-time instructions.
If someone has an idea how that can be accomplished; please speak now.

Set a timing lock on the thread so it locks it at a certain time?

 

[invy]

This discussion here is great step to make demogame better . I'm still quite new here and I am really having fun playing the demogame. Some things aren't perfect but these forums are quite interesting and inovative place. We should give our best, forget those argues, and PLAY the game.
Maybe the demogame 'got stuck' a little because we're going too fast, so procedures and decisions can't be finished properly as many of us would like. We could/should have TCs every 4/5 days (not 3 as it is now) to solve this discussion/polling problems.
Also if ministers had little more time they could think of more ideas and plans for the game, and more citizens who can't attend TCs should be able to follow the game.
Also, I think there are many other ways to make this game more interesting and to include more citizens to active positions. For example, most of cities doesn't have mayors and we should do more to encourage citizens to post their opinions and to show them they are part of the game.

And finally, about this problem with CT. Try to keep complaints in one thread, without personal fights, these things tends to spread throughout the forum. There are people who just want to play the game and to ignore this 'issue' but that is becoming hard. It scares people away and they will leave the game if they understand it as a private game and fighting ground of few high-ranked players.

 

[MOTH]

Set a timing lock on the thread so it locks it at a certain time?

Not a bad idea at all

However, this would make it more difficult for the DP to pust the summary and saves. They'd have to create a placeholder for the summary before the thread was locked or they'd have to post the summary in the first post. If a different DP needed to post the summary then the first post wouldn't work. Can edits even be made to posts in a locked thread?

 

[snipelfritz]

I think there have been some really great points brought up here, espescially the matter of more space between turnchats.

My basic summary is that we all need to lighten up a little and just enjoy the game.

Ravensfire, if you go into the Culture Ministry's thread, the second post contains an up to date cultural review including what wonders have been/are being built, when, and where.

Oh and I forgot to mention, the last line of my little narative contains a quote. The one who can name what it's from gets a special prize.

 

[Cyc]

"Cheeseheads are people too!!!"

Sounds like something Terry Bradshaw would say about Packer Fans.

Also people keep saying this is a fight. This is the games legal system. It was designed to promote fair play. That's the reason the Judiciary has developed the way it has.

Think back to your history class. Think about the American blacks in the 50's and the 60's. Were they being paranoid or were they being treated unfairly? Should we have just said they they were dreaming up conspiracy theories and blown them off because we didn't want to be accountable for what they said?

The reason we have Courts is to protect the rights of the citizens no matter what position, if any, they hold. The Judicial system can not go after people or if they have not broken the law. So it's not a baseless accusation.

 

[ravensfire]

Ravensfire, if you go into the Culture Ministry's thread, the second post contains an up to date cultural review including what wonders have been/are being built, when, and where.

I saw them, and should have mentioned them - my thanks! I didn't see a mention of what wonders other civs are building, or a note that no civs were building a wonder.

Sorry!

-- Ravensfire

 

[eyrei]

I think it is time for me to give you my opinion as a citizen on this.

It is my opinion that a significant group of citizens feel they are disenfranchised by having certain people in power, and when that person is often the President, they start to get annoyed about being a powerless majority. Soon after, the CCs start flying, and everyone starts yelling at each other, making less and less sense as the discussion 'progresses'. Hopefully this thread will not degenerate into that sort of bickering.

I think the simplest solution is to impose term limits for the highest offices. Maybe even a one term limit for President. This would ensure that no monopoly on any office is achieved, giving those not in the majority a voice.

Now, as for my motivation for leaving this thread open, I was interested in the opinions of the newer players in particular. If anyone thinks they are going to start a flame war here, I suggest they find something else to do until the idea has left their mind.

 

[Black_Hole]

I think it is time for me to give you my opinion as a citizen on this.

It is my opinion that a significant group of citizens feel they are disenfranchised by having certain people in power, and when that person is often the President, they start to get annoyed about being a powerless majority. Soon after, the CCs start flying, and everyone starts yelling at each other, making less and less sense as the discussion 'progresses'. Hopefully this thread will not degenerate into that sort of bickering.

I think the simplest solution is to impose term limits for the highest offices. Maybe even a one term limit for President. This would ensure that no monopoly on any office is achieved, giving those not in the majority a voice.

Now, as for my motivation for leaving this thread open, I was interested in the opinions of the newer players in particular. If anyone thinks they are going to start a flame war here, I suggest they find something else to do until the idea has left their mind.

im sorry, but i never intended this to be a flame war, but a thread about how we can improve this game in general(not just dealing with the actual game or dealing with the legal stuff)

 

[eyrei]

im sorry, but i never intended this to be a flame war, but a thread about how we can improve this game in general(not just dealing with the actual game or dealing with the legal stuff)

Then we are on the same page.

 

[Ashburnham]

My basic summary is that we all need to lighten up a little and just enjoy the game.

What else needs to be said?

 

[gert-janl]

I believe the most important remains, that we need more time between different turnchats, so as to ensure that we can have enough debates about our game. We should remember that the debates are the main reason we are participating in a demogame. If we want to play a nice game of civ, we can do that simply offline.

I would like to follow the suggestions to increase the 'inter-turnchat period' to 5 days. I wouldn't mind if the DG takes some more time to complete, and I would really appreciate a more relaxed atmospere on the forums . Members who check this forum once a day at a max (like me) should be able to participate as much as members who dedicat all their spare time to the DG.

I am not very sure about the term-limit. We might come across several unnecessary problems. In the term3 election there wasn't an opponent in the presidential election for Chieftess, so if we imposed a term-limit, we needed to find another president somehow. And why changing from president when every citizens wants to keep him/her in office?

 

[classical_hero]

Maybe this could be a case for preferencal voting. This would eliminate some of the problems because with the poll, there were two people who voted to keep both of them. Since they could clearly see, if they kept checking the poll to see which option is winning and if there option isn't a chance of winning they could say that because this option is very similar to the one that I voted for, I do not mind if my vote would count for that option, or something to that order. What do the citizens think?

 

[eyrei]

I am not very sure about the term-limit. We might come across several unnecessary problems. In the term3 election there wasn't an opponent in the presidential election for Chieftess, so if we imposed a term-limit, we needed to find another president somehow. And why changing from president when every citizens wants to keep him/her in office?

I think a lot of that had to do with the perception that they wouldn't have had a chance anyway.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I think the simplest solution is to impose term limits for the highest offices. Maybe even a one term limit for President. This would ensure that no monopoly on any office is achieved, giving those not in the majority a voice.

I'll say no, right off the bat.

This term, you may know, Chieftess was the only one to accept her nomination for President. If she would be limited to one term, then...we wouldn't have a President. We don't want that.

But, if you make it you can't run for President a second term in a row *if* someone else is running, well, then that is better.