Petition to Remove Set Start Date

[Black_Hole]

As you can see in the announcements thread, CT has set the date to which we have to start by as March 1st. I would hope we could start a petition to stop this unnessecary limit. This is what hurt DG4 greatly...
Here is the announcemnet if you can't find it : Announcement
Post here if you want to join the petition.


Petition Signers:
Black_Hole
ravensfire
Octavian X
Eklektikos
donsig
Donovan Zoi
Cyc

 

[Ginger_Ale]

I wanna play the game. If you want to sit around and discuss things to no end, that's a waste of time. You can spend the time you are using 'organizing a petition' to discuss DG6 and what we can do to start it, rather than what we can do to stop it.

If we do get March 1st moved back, what do you think is an acceptable date / when do you think we will be ready?

 

[Black_Hole]

I wanna play the game. If you want to sit around and discuss things to no end, that's a waste of time. You can spend the time you are using 'organizing a petition' to discuss DG6 and what we can do to start it, rather than what we can do to stop it.

If we do get March 1st moved back, what do you think is an acceptable date / when do you think we will be ready?

how about no date... Now we are all smart, we wont spend forever but there are 2 reasons why I dont like this:
1. We shouldnt just force us to a date to finish something
2. I don't like the idea of moderators controlling the game beyond enforcing forum rules....

 

[Ginger_Ale]

You saw what happened with DG5 - in 2 months, we went practically nowhere -> we have lots of proposals for the 'core' constitution - why can't we work off these, poll which one (including traditional) gets the most promising results, and work off that? It utilizes the WOTP and gets the game moving. If I see no progress being made in discussions if we had no start date, why would I want to contribute? It would just get lost in the [endless] discussions..

 

[Black_Hole]

You saw what happened with DG5 - in 2 months, we went practically nowhere -> we have lots of proposals for the 'core' constitution - why can't we work off these, poll which one (including traditional) gets the most promising results, and work off that? It utilizes the WOTP and gets the game moving. If I see no progress being made in discussions if we had no start date, why would I want to contribute? It would just get lost in the [endless] discussions..

You might be right there, I would wholehartedly accept this if it was polled and discussed instead of 1 person deciding on it. I thought this was a Democracy Game
Even though I am against the idea I wouldnt be petitioning against it if the people decided on it

 

[Chieftess]

You might be right there, I would wholehartedly accept this if it was polled and discussed instead of 1 person deciding on it. I thought this was a Democracy Game
Even though I am against the idea I wouldnt be petitioning against it if the people decided on it

And it's a democracy game about a game of Civ3, not a game of bueracracy. Take a look at DG1 and DG2. We had rule discussion even as the game was being played.

 

[Black_Hole]

And it's a democracy game about a game of Civ3, not a game of bueracracy. Take a look at DG1 and DG2. We had rule discussion even as the game was being played.

its still democratic as all people(not even citizens!) can propose ideas, comment on others ideas, and vote on this.
Also I would read the def. on bueracracy: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=bureaucracy
You will find this is quite the opposite as its not about complex hierachy and decision making but a simple democracy

 

[Chieftess]

#3 - An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.

You should also remember that in a poll I did on why people left, 1/3 replied it was because of bueracracy and legal bickering. This isn't fun stuff. There was a forum for this once, called "Model Parliament". If you want to go start that up again, be my guest, but this is a demogame, which involves discussions on gameplay of a civ game. I'm pretty sure if we waste 5 months on discussing the ruleset (slowly), then people's attention will be turning to Civ4.

 

[Black_Hole]

You should also remember that in a poll I did on why people left, 1/3 replied it was because of bueracracy and legal bickering. This isn't fun stuff. There was a forum for this once, called "Model Parliament". If you want to go start that up again, be my guest, but this is a demogame, which involves discussions on gameplay of a civ game. I'm pretty sure if we waste 5 months on discussing the ruleset (slowly), then people's attention will be turning to Civ4.

Some people somewhat like that stuff... If you did a poll this DG, a large number of them probably left because of a horrible ruleset, which is because of our abrupt start... 5 monthes is a large exaggeration, I do believe we can get it done this month, but it cant be a set time, then things are rushed together and such.

 

[Chieftess]

There was nothing stopping you from amending it. Just because the game started doesn't mean you can't continue to add to the constitution.

Now, something like DG4 where there were daily judicial reviews was definately overkill.

 

[ravensfire]

/s/ Signed.

We have have it FINISHED this time BEFORE we start. No more of this "oh, we'll just get it done sometime." We get it DONE.

CT - if you want to help, truly, truly help, do what DZ did in DG3 (or was is 4) - push the discussions along in an orderly manner. Not interfering with the process, but speeding the decisions up, polling as needed, proding as needed.

Actually, I'll extend that plea to all moderators. If you want to help speed the process up, then speed the process up. CT, you should know by now that setting an arbitrary deadline does abolsolutely no good. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chieftess]

I did try to push the discussions along by planning on posting threads, then someone shouted me out and essentially said, "No offense, but I'll do it myself".

 

[DaveShack]

I did try to push the discussions along by planning on posting threads, then someone shouted me out and essentially said, "No offense, but I'll do it myself".

Ever heard of a PM? Your doing this is the worst thing that could have happened. If Eyrei or Rik did it, there probably wouldn't have been any disagreement, and if one of the ordinary folk like myself or Ravensfire did it there would be no disagreement at all.

If I were Trump, you'd be fired.

 

[Octavian X]

I'll add a signature to the list. Let's work this out properly, especially given the vigor dedicated to a few of the alternative government proposals.

 

[Provolution]

Go for March 1 (Mars) , that is a good choice, and we can even allow ourselves a grace period till 8 of March to let the new first term government get into position.
I remember with agony the time lost in arguing the capital placement and the settler move. We can still be lenient on tweaking the game in the first week.

 

[Eklektikos]

I did try to push the discussions along by planning on posting threads, then someone shouted me out and essentially said, "No offense, but I'll do it myself".

Understandably so, since it did look rather like an attempt to wrest control of the process from those who had originally taken responsibility for it. I ascribe no malice nor ulterior motive to you and sincerely believe that you were just trying to help out, but in my opinion you'd do more good by contributing to the existing discussions than by setting arbitrary deadlines and churning out a plethora of threads prefixed by "OFFICIAL DISCUSSION".

Petition signed.

 

[Chieftess]

If Eyrei or Rik did it, there probably wouldn't have been any disagreement, and if one of the ordinary folk like myself or Ravensfire did it there would be no disagreement at all.

That's just the point. You obviously have something against me as if I'm sitting here saying, "Gee, let's make some big conspiracy!". I would advise that you cut it with your attitude...

 

[Scuffer]

See, I'd love to join the demo game. Every now and again, I think, "yeah, a whole bunch of people cooperating to have a good fun game of civ, where I can learn some stuff, add my 2p, and generally enjoy it"

But every time I do think that, I read a thread like this and I realise that it isn't going to happen like that. It's going to be a whole lot of bickering about stuff that really isn't important, and that the bickering over nothing seems to be more important than the game.

Sorry for barging into your forum and thread and thread like this, but I thought it might be useful to have an 'outsider looking in' point of view.

 

[Ashburnham]

See, I'd love to join the demo game. Every now and again, I think, "yeah, a whole bunch of people cooperating to have a good fun game of civ, where I can learn some stuff, add my 2p, and generally enjoy it"

But every time I do think that, I read a thread like this and I realise that it isn't going to happen like that. It's going to be a whole lot of bickering about stuff that really isn't important, and that the bickering over nothing seems to be more important than the game.

Sorry for barging into your forum and thread and thread like this, but I thought it might be useful to have an 'outsider looking in' point of view.

It's really not all that bad. Most of the quarreling is consigned to a few people with long-standing vendettas. Most of us DG folk are cooperative, constructive citizens. We just really like to voice our opinions.

 

[Scuffer]

Thanks. I'll come back and have another look when all the official discussions are over