Initiative: Amending the Naming Initiative...Again

[730195]

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

My goal here is simplification. Just hitting enter with whatever default Civ has supplied is easier and less error-prone than remembering to type in "City 3", only to have your action challenged later because there was no "City 1" and therefore you should have used that.

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.

It is meant to be difficult. I want to see names that are more meaningful and I hope two-thirds is enough to encourage that. Seconding is irrelevant in my proposal as there are NO runoffs. It is yes/no on a single name. You get two-thirds and the name is chosen. Less than that and it's back to the drawing boards. You may discuss the name as much as you like before submitting a poll to guage the likelihood of getting two-thirds, but then you roll the dice.

4 I'm not sure what other types of naming there is, you've covered geographic features, cities, and units, what else is left?

I included that to once again affirm the right of citizens to call things whatever they like. They can put it on maps, caps, tee-shirts and coffe mugs, if they like. It just isn't official until it is approved by a poll.

 

[730195]

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

You could have chosen a better example number-wise. I'm not sure who you are expecting to win if the vote is 1 against 1. In my scheme, the naming would fail (i.e. you need at least 1.6666 votes to win a 2 vote contest).

As to undemocratic, I don't see why. Super-majorities are written into the US Constitution as well as our own game procedures for electing DPs. The goal being to require a higher degree of confidence the answer is right.

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!?

This cuts both ways. The surest way to stop complaints about the naming system is to stop naming things. Are you willing to do that? In any event, those so choosing can, indeed, ignore the naming discussion and just play.

 

[ravensfire]

My goal here is simplification. Just hitting enter with whatever default Civ has supplied is easier and less error-prone than remembering to type in "City 3", only to have your action challenged later because there was no "City 1" and therefore you should have used that.

I would support a change to using that system, it is easier than the current system.

It is meant to be difficult. I want to see names that are more meaningful and I hope two-thirds is enough to encourage that. Seconding is irrelevant in my proposal as there are NO runoffs. It is yes/no on a single name. You get two-thirds and the name is chosen. Less than that and it's back to the drawing boards. You may discuss the name as much as you like before submitting a poll to guage the likelihood of getting two-thirds, but then you roll the dice.

I would NOT support a change to this system. We'd still be using run-off polls for cities, as people will suggest multiple names. I'd prefer a system where if any name gets >50% support in the first poll, that name wins. If no name does, the 1st and 2nd names, plus any ties, goes into a run-off. Most votes wins.

People name things based on variety of matters, including current events. That's true in both the DG and in real life. We're getting these "nonsense" names now because we're having endless debates about fairly esoteric metagame concepts. As long as that continues, you'll probably see silly names.

Under normal circumstances, you get fairly good names.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

An outline of a proposal

Concepts:
1) Naming Official encouraged to have city names ready before city is founded.

2) If city is not named prior to founding, DP is to accept the default city name.

Process:
1) Naming Official creates thread for naming city X

2) After 3 days, all suggestions recieving support from another citizen (seconded) are placed in a single choice poll.

3) If a name gets more than 50% of total votes in support, that name is chosed. Otherwise, the two names recieving the most votes in support, plus ties, are placed in a run off poll. The name recieving the most votes in support is chosen.

4) All city name polls will last 3 days.

Naming Units/Geographic Features
1) The Naming Official will create procedures to name anything other than cities.

Add detail, and done. Reasonably fast and open process.

-- Ravensfire

 

[730195]

I would NOT support a change to this system. We'd still be using run-off polls for cities, as people will suggest multiple names.

You are arguing against some other system than mine. I have NO runoffs. One name per poll. If multiple polls are listed at the same time, so be it, but only the one (if that) that gets 2/3 wins. All the others go down in flames.

 

[Falcon02]

Ravensfire,

Personally I don't think the CoC method is elitist, since everyone who names a city is elected by the general populous. However, I understand how people can concider it Elitist, as each official has a exlusive rights to name their city.

Also I recognize Civ IV is much different from Civ III, you get alot more cities in Civ III, and it wasn't too hard to run through all the elected officials and go on to the Citizens. Civ IV is a different beast, in term 1 we founded 2 cities, so the likelyhood of giving everyone a chance to name a city of their own deminishes greatly.

And quite honestly I prefer a system like this, we've gotten some pretty good names that have nothing to do with individual people (Simular to many real city names). These would not be likely in a CoC method, as each person has a bit of a desire to "make their mark" many city names end up being some variation of their own name (Falcon's Haven for example). Now these do have their place, and can be nice, but you're unlikely to get more creative names.

I was primarily just putting it out on the table as an option, honestly I prefer the current polling system, however, I too have been getting frustrated with the indecisivness we've been having in naming cities. And Honestly I feel like cities should already be given names before we've settled the city. That however requires enough time to both select a location AND name before settling, and many good name suggestions haven been based on location.

 

[ravensfire]

You are arguing against some other system than mine. I have NO runoffs. One name per poll. If multiple polls are listed at the same time, so be it, but only the one (if that) that gets 2/3 wins. All the others go down in flames.

No - I am vehemently against your system. It will be slow, cause more debate and probably lead to more foolish names as people get tired of poll after poll failing to get 2/3 support.

EDIT: Consider this - 4 names are proposed. How does one narrow that down? Discussion? Come on - you should know better than that. Multiple polls, with each name getting it's own poll? You've all but guaranteed that no name will be chosen. Yup - that leaves a preliminary poll, probably more than one to get to that single yea or nay name.

Sorry, but it's just not a good system.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Falcon02]

An outline of a proposal

Concepts:
1) Naming Official encouraged to have city names ready before city is founded.

2) If city is not named prior to founding, DP is to accept the default city name.

Process:
1) Naming Official creates thread for naming city X

2) After 3 days, all suggestions recieving support from another citizen (seconded) are placed in a single choice poll.

3) If a name gets more than 50% of total votes in support, that name is chosed. Otherwise, the two names recieving the most votes in support, plus ties, are placed in a run off poll. The name recieving the most votes in support is chosen.

4) All city name polls will last 3 days.

Naming Units/Geographic Features
1) The Naming Official will create procedures to name anything other than cities.

Add detail, and done. Reasonably fast and open process.

-- Ravensfire

This proposal seems reasonable to me.

You are arguing against some other system than mine. I have NO runoffs. One name per poll. If multiple polls are listed at the same time, so be it, but only the one (if that) that gets 2/3 wins. All the others go down in flames.

A poll for each option is unneccisary and inefficient in my opinion, you end up potentially getting 10 polls running at once to name a single city... A single poll with all the choices could easily eliminate the majority of the options, even though a run-off may be required to decide between the top runners.

Also, there is the potential in that system for either no names to get 2/3 or multiple names to get a 2/3, meaning either a run-off would still be required, or the city doesn't get a name and remains the default (personally I don't like the second option).

 

[Nobody]

why not just do officals get a city first and then in order of the sign up thread. It makes sense to me

 

[ravensfire]

why not just do officals get a city first and then in order of the sign up thread. It makes sense to me

And the people that don't have the time to be an official, and sign up late?

Sure makes sense for them, doesn't it?

-- Ravensfire

 

[NKVD]

You could have chosen a better example number-wise. I'm not sure who you are expecting to win if the vote is 1 against 1. In my scheme, the naming would fail (i.e. you need at least 1.6666 votes to win a 2 vote contest).

As to undemocratic, I don't see why. Super-majorities are written into the US Constitution as well as our own game procedures for electing DPs. The goal being to require a higher degree of confidence the answer is right.

This cuts both ways. The surest way to stop complaints about the naming system is to stop naming things. Are you willing to do that? In any event, those so choosing can, indeed, ignore the naming discussion and just play.

like i care about the 2 parties state of your country...If quebec had got 50% +1 person in an independance poll we would have seperated back 95. Same thing for much of any countries. U.N. says it is undemocratic to do otherwise.

Here's why. there's been a debate about this in quebec since i'm alive. In Quebec if 3,600,000 votes for separation (yes) and 3,400,000 votes for "no" using your criteria Quebec wouldnt seperate even if more people voted yes.this is the actual definition of democracy " government by the people; especially : rule of the majority" your rule means "yes" votes value less than "no" votes. why "no" values more than "yes"? why not the contrary? but i'm guessing you are used to that with your political system back in USA...

i would also point that you are alone with mike complaining. you want to stop naming things and play...well i'm apointed cartographer. You may not know anything in cartography, you may not have read any books on that matter but cartographers never did polls to name a desert. i'm apointed cartographer so it's actually my job to make maps...ever seen a military map with nothing written on it ? not me. I'm also thinking that if I work my ass off 2 hours producing a nice map i should have the priviliege to name a few things so it not just look like multiple screenshots glued together. it will be real soon that i'll name things without asking too bad if i get ejected they'll be no maps since I think you're thinking it's better to have no bad names with no maps than good maps with bad names.

 

[730195]

A poll for each option is unneccisary and inefficient in my opinion, you end up potentially getting 10 polls running at once to name a single city... A single poll with all the choices could easily eliminate the majority of the options, even though a run-off may be required to decide between the top runners.

I don't know how inefficient it is. Say you have already voted for the name you like and then someone else starts another poll. Just go to it and click No and that's taken care of. Now one question is: how many will go to the trouble of making such polls when
- there are already 9 others for the same city?
- they know they need two-thirds in order to win?
You may occasionally have multiple low-probability polls, but I suspect the work of creating a poll will act as a moderately efficient filter (plus the loss of face for making so many losing polls ). However, I would be willing to discuss some limit on the number of such polls one person could start in a certain period of time, if that would help assuage fears.

Also, there is the potential in that system for either no names to get 2/3 or multiple names to get a 2/3, meaning either a run-off would still be required, or the city doesn't get a name and remains the default (personally I don't like the second option).

I will say again: NO RUNOFF. If there are multiple polls for the same city AND if more than one get two-thirds (why the citizens would do this is a mystery, but let's assume they do), then here is what happens:

- First poll closes and defines the new name.
- Second poll closes also with a two-thirds majority and it defines the NEW name for the city.
- This can repeat as many times as you like and the LAST two-thirds poll will be the current legal name.

Now it strikes me as really unlikely that sufficient citizens will vote Yes to different names for the same city at the same time to give multiple two-thirds winners, but it will work out smoothly and without need for intervention.

 

[730195]

i would also point that you are alone with mike complaining.

Why bother pointing this out? If Mike and I are the only 2 people (ignoring at least 6 others who voted to invalidate your polls) who don't like the current system, why do you keep responding? If I am as alone as you seem to think, then nothing will come of it.

you want to stop naming things and play...well i'm apointed cartographer. You may not know anything in cartography, you may not have read any books on that matter but cartographers never did polls to name a desert. i'm apointed cartographer so it's actually my job to make maps...ever seen a military map with nothing written on it ? not me. I'm also thinking that if I work my ass off 2 hours producing a nice map i should have the priviliege to name a few things so it not just look like multiple screenshots glued together. it will be real soon that i'll name things without asking too bad if i get ejected they'll be no maps since I think you're thinking it's better to have no bad names with no maps than good maps with bad names.

You have no reason to argue this with me. You have my blessing (as if it were necessary) to put as many names as you like on your maps. My complaint all along has been the manipulation of the election process, not with what you put on your maps. Go for it!

 

[mike6426]

My complaint all along has been the manipulation of the election process, not with what you put on your maps. Go for it!

This is the exact reason I am complaining, if you are going to make a poll for naming, at least do it correctly, according to mores; otherwise, just make the names yourself...as I said previously, "[officials] could just [name it themselves]" (again, not condoning breaking DGII laws).

I do not believe that 730195's proposal is good as I believe that the process should be made easier, not more confusing for the people. If we wanted this stuff to be more confusing, we would have made a bureaucratic system.

 

[730195]

I do not believe that 730195's proposal is good as I believe that the process should be made easier, not more confusing for the people. If we wanted this stuff to be more confusing, we would have made a bureaucratic system.

What sort of "easier" did you have in mind? Easier than the current system? Easier than my suggestion? Easier in what way?

 

[grant2004]

Frankly I'm perfectly happy with the current system, unfortunately there has been a bit of delay in the naming of the cities, (I think we're getting into the swing of things now though) and unfortunately a few nits have been picked about the procedure for initial names, but I'm sure within 1-2 turnchats our first two cities will be named and our third will either be named, or well on it's way.

 

[mike6426]

I am aiming for easier to get potential names. Your's, 730195, seems too radical a change, while the current system allows potential names to go on without seconding, having bad names go through the naming polls, skewing the results.

 

[730195]

I am aiming for easier to get potential names. Your's, 730195, seems too radical a change, while the current system allows potential names to go on without seconding, having bad names go through the naming polls, skewing the results.

OK, how about this:

- All cities and geographical features are named (or unnamed) by single name yes/no polls.
- The first such poll that completes for a given location succeeds automatically.
- Subsequent polls for the same location succeed only if they get more Yes votes than the previous winner for that location.
- Polls may be of any duration desired by the pollster.

So, things get named easily and quickly. Things can get renamed (or unnamed), but it gets harder each time. There is also some interesting game theory choice about how long you want to make your poll.

 

[NKVD]

I suspect the work of creating a poll will act as a moderately efficient filter (plus the loss of face for making so many losing polls ).

not even talking about people suggesting change of rules so many times without anyone agreeing...

 

[Furiey]

I prefer the ide of using the default civ name as the initial city name rather than city 1, city 2 etc.

The default Civ name can also then be included in subsequent renaming polls for anyone who does not prefer the suggested names.