Provincial Borders: Berry

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Cyc
Fine with me CT. I have said it was too early to poll this.

Boots, if we're going to use Ocean tiles, why not just extend the borders out to meet the potential borders of the next land mass? Say the next continent? OR the next Province, what does it matter. Or are you going to say that you like YOUR restriction on the Provincial border guidelines better, as opposed to the ones that were intended with this Law? See, that's where you're missing the point. You would rather break the Law (or change it without following procedure) than just abide by it (or change it the proper way)

Cyc, the law never seems to clearly state that ocean tiles cannot be included in the provinces. I see no reason that my interpretation that around 126 land tiles plus any number of ocean tiles can be included in a province is any more invalid than your statement that ocean tiles cannot be included.

 

[Cyc]

First of all Bootstoots, Ocean Tiles can by no means be used for any kind of development or production of a Province as they are at least 3 tiles away from the coast. Therefore, why would we even consider putting them in a Province?

Second, although your interpretation of the Law is important considering that you are a Citizen of Fanatica, but your opinion does not hold more weight than the Law. The intent of the Law is well documented in several discussions leading up to it's ratification.

 

[Bootstoots]

Okay, well, I'll leave it at that. It would of course be illogical to extend the borders to ocean squares, but I still don't see why they can't be included, as it never specifically says that they can't. I will stop contributing to this argument, however.

 

[Chieftess]

One way to look at it is, we were doing fine with including the coastlines the past 3 demogames. Why stop now?

 

[DaveShack]

I'm frankly quite disappointed with the tone this game has taken on.

There was a discussion thread, started at the explicit request of a citizen, and exactly one proposal. It sat there for 2 weeks, and so it was taken forward as a poll. If you have an alternative border suggestion, the discussion thread is still there. We have vocal input from several citizens that they want leaders who base their proposals on citizen input, but some of those same people say this is a bad proposal without offering any alternatives. It's trivial to shoot someone else's idea down, let's try to be a little more positive and offer solutions.

 

[ravensfire]

DaveShack,

It's happened on nearly every thread, why should this be different.

BTW, I've done some research. The initial proposal that established the 126-tile format was proposed on the 27th. The poll was posted on the 5th. That clause essentially remained the same from start to finish.

Nobody complained about "land" being missing.

In fact, nobody even brought up "land" in the ensuing discussion.

The rational for 126 was the full radius for a certain number of cities (5 I believe), plus enough for a smaller city somewhere. Coastal tiles do end up being part of a cities radius ...

One way or another, I really don't care which way we go. Settle it through an amendment, settle it through a JR or settle it through the cleanup of the reported bugs - take your pick.

But for the sanity of us all, we NEED to get some borders going.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by ravensfire
But for the sanity of us all, we NEED to get some borders going.

-- Ravensfire

That one's going into my quotebook!



Anyway, yes, it HAS happened in every thread. Let's go back to where it was pointed out that "If advisors don't post adequate discussions, then they're lazy". Well, here, citizens didn't spot that "land" was missing. Does that mean we have lazy citizens? This is like a dog chasing its' own tail. We're getting no where. Even if we spent another month just discussing rules, I'm pretty sure there'll be those who've reached the "Burnout" point and just vote to get it over with, and get on with the game.

Sure this is term 2 and we have no borders yet... and I'll say it again. Our current ruleset seems to demand that we move slowly and stop at every bump in the road. Because of that, we haven't progressed as far as other demogames.

DG 1 - We were somewhere around 250BC by the end of Term 1.
DG 2 - We were somewhere around 1990BC by the end of Term 1. However, this was when we were meeting 16-odd civs left and right every other turn.
DG 3 - Where were at 430BC by the end of term 1. Here, we were isolated, and had only met a few civs.

There is NO law that says, "Provincial borders must be defined and polled by term 1". In DG2, we stopped a LOT of times early on because of meeting new civs, trades, etc. IIRC, we didn't get the borders up until about part way through the 2nd term. I think we're close to uncovering the fog, and that WILL help to define our borders. Also, we only have 3 cities at the start of term 2. Only DG2 was like this (granted, risky), but we were going for warrior-to-sword upgrade, with a VERY reliable iron source.

 

[Sarevok]

Id wait on this, no.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire
DaveShack,

It's happened on nearly every thread, why should this be different.

BTW, I've done some research. The initial proposal that established the 126-tile format was proposed on the 27th. The poll was posted on the 5th. That clause essentially remained the same from start to finish.

Nobody complained about "land" being missing.

In fact, nobody even brought up "land" in the ensuing discussion.

The rational for 126 was the full radius for a certain number of cities (5 I believe), plus enough for a smaller city somewhere. Coastal tiles do end up being part of a cities radius ...

One way or another, I really don't care which way we go. Settle it through an amendment, settle it through a JR or settle it through the cleanup of the reported bugs - take your pick.

But for the sanity of us all, we NEED to get some borders going.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire, the reason I didn't b1tch about the way you wrote the law was because of the same reason everyone is stating in these threads. I just let it go because all the documentation I gave you on the 126-tile plan specifically stated what I'm saying here. You supported that plan as a whole. I never once heard you whine about the "LAND" part. I suppose that was because it was mentioned so many times before. Now you say you are changing your mind? What's this another reversal? This issue was taken care of long ago. The only reason the Law has to be changed is so that some people can't easily work their way around it.

In post 25 of the discussion thread for this poll, the Internal Affairs Minister asked me about the Land part of the Land Tile Plan. He asked "Is the tile limit based on workable tiles, or land tiles? There is value in considering workable water tiles, but without knowing where cities will fall it is difficult to count them." I answered exactly like I am here in this thread and no opposition was written in the remainder of that disscussion thread until today, because of this poll thread discussion. Now after the poll had run a while, people want to change the Law because that "one word" wasn't included. Regardless of how this debacle turns out, it just goes to prove the poor way this game has developed with rule-breaking and arrogant attitudes that demand what they want without putting in enough effort beforehand to make it so. Typical.