Is this demo game dead?

[GenMarshall]

Either limiting the scope of the power (ie. limiting the reasons for the repeal) or limiting the scope of Moderators (ie. the Moderator can't be an active participant in the DG).

Somehow I see this as quite unfair since it prevents them from even participating in the Game. However, I have not seen any of the Moderators of the Demogame even said a word as of late.

Honestly I think the first is more reasonable and more fair. The second requires the Moderator to essentially be ignorant of the scope of the Demogame.

This one I would agree to. But how far should we require the mods to be ignorant of the DG? Not allow them to hold an office other than Judariay (Which was the case in DG1CIV3)

And excuse my potentially outdated terminology, but what happened to purely informational polls? Were non-binding polls for more general policy guidelines thrown out as "unfair" or something?

They have gone away with the Dodo bird in months time. I have been ignorant on the history of what happened to these old polls due because of constant bickering that has gone in the past (Which turned me off from the Demogame other than real life and other interests that I gained)

 

[dutchfire]

I'm ok with this as long as officials are still considered citizens.

Of course they are

Instead of "recalled" here, I'd suggest "overriden by an initiative". Also remember many of our officials are not elected, unless we change the normal plan and have uncontested nominees stand election anyway.

Like with the DP's? Maybe a good idea?

 

[dutchfire]

A careful comparison of dutchfire's proposal shows that it is the same concept as the existing Constitution, with certain details removed -- the ones which have resulted in conflicts. I definitely agree with this general approach, especially for the Constitution layer.


I'll be disappointed if we don't require the judiciary to be "fair, impartial, public and speedy", but that's the only detail missing that really has any potential to make a difference.

I looked at your constitution, but I agree, some things might have to be modified or added.

 

[dutchfire]

About the moderators:

Like I consider officials to be citizens too, I consider Moderators to be citizens (and possibly officials) too. What I meant in the constitution is that Mods, acting in their duty as mods, have the right to veto. Maybe I should have been more clear.

 

[DaveShack]

It was clear for me that the moderator clause meant the same thing it always has, "veto laws which conflict with forum rules." They have that power no matter what anyway, it's never been anything more than a confirmation that we understand that.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm ok with this as long as officials are still considered citizens.

Of course they are

I didn't doubt you think that way. This comment is aimed at one of our citizens who is currently away on a trip.

 

[ice2k4]

And excuse my potentially outdated terminology, but what happened to purely informational polls? Were non-binding polls for more general policy guidelines thrown out as "unfair" or something?

We still have them, they have just eveolved into "opinion polls" instead of "informational polls." They have an identical purpose and procedure. Since their not binding, what need is there to regulate them?

 

[GenMarshall]

Another thing we should consider is spreading the news about this place to other parts of CFC to gather in more people.

 

[GenMarshall]

Dang, its been four days since I posted here. We do need to liven this place up and recruit some new blood into the demogame .

 

[robboo]

well it would help if we actually played a TC...otherwise lets just burn this game and start over.

 

[GenMarshall]

well it would help if we actually played a TC...otherwise lets just burn this game and start over.

Well, personally, we should finish this game before we start a new one. Plus the topic on which version we should use.

 

[Chieftess]

Next time, we shouldn't play on Epic.

Civ4 is different than Civ3 in that there aren't as many cities to work with, and builds generally take a bit longer (1-2 turn builds in multiple cities occur late in the game). I think you could save the game as a worldbuilder save, and edit the file to play as a normal, or quick game (it would require someone not in the demogame to change it, though). This is why I suggested 20 turn turnchats once or twice.

In fact, I think we should start playing 20 turns at a time. Epic is 600+ turns (I don't know the exact number offhand).


There's probably other reasons, too, like...

- The map has less than the standard 11+ civs that Civ3 demogames have had (minus daveshack's mistake - I think it was daveshack), so less possible role play. Take a look at Civ3 DG1 and some of DG2. (Pangaeas are the best for roleplay - more civs to meet) We were on continents then, and there was lots of action. Our continent is nothing more than a sleepy jungle!

- Our isolated position in the world. REALLY isolated - we were lucky enough to have 1 war. Plus, no religion on the entire continent! really kills roleplay - and gameplay, too!

- Larger maps late in the game really eat up memory, and a lot of people's computers can't handle it very well. Thus, screenshots are essential.

 

[ice2k4]

I think we should be playing on a normal pangea, or a normal terra. I've always found terra extremely interesting and it increases the amount of stratgetic locations and borders. Many a times have I found myself fighting to secure costal cities and make sure that my coast is not trapped by ice and unfriendly borders that would not let me send my troops to the "new world."

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I must admit, I wasn't too into this game. I didn't have Civ4 when this game started, and we were getting lots of newcomers too, who I didn't really know. I feel like we just expected the DG to work, and clearly, it wasn't too successful. Overall, it was just too hectic, confusing, and the ruleset, I'm sorry to say, just didn't make sense. Censor? Triumvirate? Too much organizational bureaucracy!

I think we really need to overhaul this Single Player Demogame if we want it to still be attractive. More simplistic, more discussion-based; like the Civ3 DGs. I really enjoyed DG5, and lurked DG4. People participated in discussions and had a lot of enthusiasm - something we lack. If we can get over 100 people for the MTDG, imagine what we can do with just 30 or 40!

I'm willing to put a good deal of effort into this to help organize it if people are willing to work together to create a more efficient and up-to-date demogame.

 

[Falcon02]

I think Chieftess made some good points, didn't really think about it but being Isolated doesn't really help with interest.

On modifying it to Normal/Quick, I'd be willing to do that since I'm not "really" a participant in the Demogame. Though I would ask you guys speed things up so I could get in on the next one

 

[DaveShack]

If this were a solo game, I would have abandoned it long ago. For many of us, aside from the obvious beta testers, it was among the 1st serious games of Civ4 we played (many got it for Christmas last year and then we started in January -- and the ones who got the special edition in November found it didn't work very good till the 1st patch came out), and it shouldn't surprise anyone that we made some really bad noob mistakes early on.

Now that we have a clue, and we know how Civ4 should be played, we have a decent chance of coming up with an organization that will actually work.