Initiative: Amending the Naming Initiative...Again

mike6426

Singularitarian
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
160
Location
Somewhere
The Naming Initiative
I. Preamble
As our civilisation grows we will, hopefully, found new cities and discover geographical features. Especially in the case of cities, custom names would help add an atmospheric touch to our civilisation.

II. Procedure for Naming a New City
On founding, a city will be given the temporary placeholder name: "City#1" (In the event that there is already a city holding that name, the new city will be named "City#2" and so on in numerical order as required). A thread will then be opened, to accept nominations from the public for the new city's name.

All nominated names which have been seconded after four days will then be polled. No poll should be made until four days after the first seconded name. If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, will be polled again. In the event of no majority in the second poll, the top two options will be polled again.

Should no nomination be seconded, all nominated names will be entered in the initial poll.


III. Loss of city
Should a city be conquered or otherwise lost to another civilisation, before the naming process is completed, the process will be continued and the city given the eventually chosen name in the event of its recovery. Should the city be razed or otherwise destroyed before the naming process is complete, however, the naming process will be aborted.

IV. Renaming an Existing City

Renaming a city should occur only in special cases, and as such would be organised by the Cheiftain, in consultation with the city in question's Elder

V. Other features
Other geographical features, including, but not limited to: continents, mountain ranges, oceans, forests, and plains may also be named. Nomination threads for such features may be posted by any interested individual, and would follow the same procedure as in II.

It is advised that a thread be maintained noting names of such geographical features to allow for easy referral.

VI. Limitations
Names must not violate CFC forum rules

I believe that this will allow more deliberation of, and for, proposed names. This would obviously slow down the naming process, but if no names are seconded, there must be some reason, namely that there are no good proposed names.

The above reasons are why I am proposing this amendment to the Naming Initiative.
 
I think when we'll have 20 cities in the late game it will take so much time to name a city the game will end before we name it. not even talking about a ocean here :rolleyes:
 
People seemed to jump into naming the Capital, I expect a similar "turnout" for other cities/geographical phenomenon (someone please tell me if otherwise, I have not been in any other demo games.)

Nearing the end, people could just do a falcon instead of polling. (I am not condoning breaking demo II laws)
 
me neither i'm just angry like Grant too against people voting no...It's a non-sense to see the "crowd" uncapacity to make a simple decision. Cant wait to see a war. I'm starting to understand Hitler quote when he said democracies are weak compared to countries led by one man.

at this rythm when we'll finish the game cities #4 and up will all be named by their numbers.
 
I don't support this change it doesn't seem necessary, as I don't see a problem with the current system, oh and just to clarify NKVD, I was angry, now I've come to understand their point of view.

Beware they'll get you too :mwaha:
 
Oh I wouldn't say that, probably just more of a wait and see approach, ya know more time = more opportunity for that light bulb to go off in some body's head
 
Mike I'm still wondering why you didnt suggest any name at all but complain about the lack of discussion of the naming procedure and poll procedure...you didnt even suggest the name of the city you gave on your citizen registration form...
 
I'm not that creative with creating names. Most likely, I would have made something based off of another language, and I do not want some foreign language that nobody knows of to be the basis of the name of a city. Nor do I want a city's name to be in English.

Also, I do not like the NoTa name for the capital. Yes it is ironic, but I would rather have some mediocre name than some ironic name for our capital.

If more than 4 people can understand my sig without searching it, PM me and I will start to nominate names.
 
I suggest taking all these naming issues a little less seriously. It's not THAT important.
 
This was my reply in the poll thread.

My vote is quite simple. I don't like any of the proposed names, but don't have any names to propose myself either. If it were just me, I wouldn't name them at all, but I don't want to take away the fun of others who do like things to be named -- as long as the names aren't really bad. ;)
 
Let's try again. Here is the type of naming law I would prefer.

The Naming Initiative
Preamble
As our civilisation grows we will, hopefully, found new cities and discover geographical features. Especially in the case of cities, custom names would help add an atmospheric touch to our civilisation.

I. Temporary City Names
On founding, a city will be given the temporary placeholder name such as: "City 1" (In the event that there is already a city holding that name, the new city will be named "City 2" and so on in numerical order as required).

II. Procedure for City Naming
At any time, a thread may be opened to accept nominations from the public for a city's name. Nominations must be open for a minimum of 3 days, and should remain open until discussion ends or a maximum of 7 days, whichever comes first. All nominated names will then be polled. If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, will be polled again. In the event of no majority in the second poll, the top two options will be polled again.

III. Other features
Other geographical features, including, but not limited to: continents, mountain ranges, oceans, forests, and plains may also be named. At any time, a thread may be opened to accept nominations from the public for a geographic feature's name. Nominations must be open for a minimum of 3 days, and should remain open until discussion ends or a maximum of 7 days, whichever comes first. All nominated names will then be polled, along with "do not name". If there are more than 19 nominated names, then only names which are seconded shall be included in the poll. If more than 19 names are seconded, then the first 19 to be proposed shall be included in the poll. If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, and "do not name", will be polled again. In the event of no majority in the second poll, the top two options and "do not name" will be polled again, and the plurality winner shall prevail.

It is advised that a thread be maintained noting names of such geographical features to allow for easy referral.

IV. Limitations
Names must not violate CFC forum rules

New in this version
  • Removed concept of seconding.
  • Required use of "do not name" in geographic feature polls
 
I don't like that idea either Dave, the seconding process if very important, it's sort of a pre-poll that prevents run-offs being necessary in every case.

I agree that there should be a do not name feature in polls, because a poll with one choice is simply a declaration.
 
Since the naming fiasco does not seem to be generating positive karma for our nation, I offer an alternative naming initiative:


  1. Movable units may be named by the official who issues their orders (presumably to facilitate giving said orders). They may be renamed whenever said official so desires.
  2. Cities will initially be named with the default Civ-supplied name
  3. City names may be modified and geographical features may be given names by a two-thirds majority in a simple yes/no vote.
  4. Any other naming activity is purely a private matter.
 
5. people not suggesting and seconding any name and complaining should be shot on the public place of Yasutan's capital.

why 2/3 majorityand only for geographical features?

1, 2 and 3 is already in place except for what I just said above.

what's left for number 4? do you mean i can name my maps like I want ?! wow terrific!
 
5. people not suggesting and seconding any name and complaining should be shot on the public place of Yasutan's capital.

There is no seconding involved in my proposal, so this does not apply.

why 2/3 majorityand only for geographical features?

Two-thirds to reduce the frivolous naming of things. Geographical AND cities - is there anyting else to include in this list?

1, 2 and 3 is already in place except for what I just said above.

This is intended as a COMPLETE replacement for current naming rules, hence the apparent overlap with some current rules. And #2 is NOT in place now - the current rules specify City #1.. etc. My proposal is a newly founded city will have the name given to it by the Civ program and will not be changed until a two-thirds vote.

what's left for number 4? do you mean i can name my maps like I want ?! wow terrific!

Absolutely. I have said this on several occasions and I continue to support it.
 
Since the naming fiasco does not seem to be generating positive karma for our nation, I offer an alternative naming initiative:


  1. Movable units may be named by the official who issues their orders (presumably to facilitate giving said orders). They may be renamed whenever said official so desires.
  2. Cities will initially be named with the default Civ-supplied name
  3. City names may be modified and geographical features may be given names by a two-thirds majority in a simple yes/no vote.
  4. Any other naming activity is purely a private matter.

I agree with a few of the points here, but all in all I think we have a good system which needs a change or two, rather than a complete overhaul.

1 is a good suggestion, that's basically the way it has been working and that system for naming units is fine.

2 isn't an issue anymore as the chieftain has issued an order putting our city names in compliance with the naming initiative, no change is necessary as the system is now working

3 I disagree with this change because 2/3 is a very tough margin to achieve, in most polls 1/2 is even a great challenge because many names are suggested, not just one. The seconding process which you've eliminated is important because it eliminates some of the choices before a poll, thus reducing the number of run-off votes.

4 I'm not sure what other types of naming there is, you've covered geographic features, cities, and units, what else is left?
 
frivolous naming? hahaha hey what's your day job?

how about the first elder can name the city as it please him...

also 2/3 is not democratic...it means that if 2 people votes, someone vote yes and another vote no ,one wins the vote. One vote means more and hav more value than the other...undemocratic

i think also that after weeks of your "lets not name things" and procedures you should stop. i'm agreeing with people on this too http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5319431&postcount=6 can we just play the game!?
 
Civ3 DG1 we named things by chain of command.

ie. Ice would have named our Capital, the elected person immediately below him the next.

New term starts back up at the top, and skips anyone who has already named a city.

Forget how it worked after going through all the elected officials though...

I think many people felt this was semi-elitist, which is why somewhere in the following years the system was done away with. Also with the minimalistic government structure (minimizing elected positions) that we started out with, wouldn't have been too effective this time around.

However, at least at the start it worked out well.
 
I think many people felt this was semi-elitist, which is why somewhere in the following years the system was done away with. Also with the minimalistic government structure (minimizing elected positions) that we started out with, wouldn't have been too effective this time around.

More than just "semi" elitist.

Oh and of course, I'll pre-empt CT, and harken back the olden days, where the rivers flowed with milk, and manna sprung forth when you were hungry. For it was a grand time, with no bickering and absolutely no silly rules. For then, city names were in order of citizen registration. And those that came late were ignored, and deemed useless.

Oh wait, did that last sentence really get in there? My bad - it almost sounds like I think CT's suggestion and yearning for the days of old is bad.

Which I do.

-- Ravensfire
 
Back
Top Bottom