Ratification of a Constitution

[ravensfire]

We're voting now on something which had very little discussion because it sat there for a week while everyone was waiting for someone else to make the first move.

DS - quick comment on that point - the proposal was up for just over 48 hours before the poll was posted. That's way, way too fast.

I'm going to post an alternative either later tonight or tomorrow morning.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

Yes, the entire process is already hijacked, so no need to make double standards.

 

[Kentharu]

i vote yes (and strangely it is the tie vote)... why because i think that in the long run we will have ammended it to perfection so i suggest that instead of redrafting another constitution stick with this one open up a forum for ammendments and start repairs while we move ahead with other things

 

[Strider]

This looks fun, so when does the *real* fighting start? I'm putting my money of Nobody.

 

[DaveShack]

DS - quick comment on that point - the proposal was up for just over 48 hours before the poll was posted. That's way, way too fast.

I'm going to post an alternative either later tonight or tomorrow morning.

-- Ravensfire

I wasn't commenting on how long Nobody's proposal was up -- but on how long the whole constitutional issue was left sitting with nobody but Nobody working on it.

Thanks for posting your proposal, I have commented on it.

 

[Nobody]

This looks fun, so when does the *real* fighting start? I'm putting my money of Nobody.

So far i av kept my boyz at bay, no threats , no warnings but it is a public poll, so i know where to set the fires

 

[donsig]

I wasn't commenting on how long Nobody's proposal was up -- but on how long the whole constitutional issue was left sitting with nobody but Nobody working on it.

Only here could a phrase like *nobody but Nobody* actually make sense.

Might I suggest that whatever lapse you're talking about stems from the fact that it gets rather boring re-inventing the wheel every demogame? There is no reason to re-write a constitution every demogame. We had a great constitution at the start of DGIII. That document had evolved over the course of the first two demogames. It was flexible enough to serve as a framework for each and every succeeding demogame if the DG community had seen fit to use it. Within it's framework there was ample room to expiriment with different governemnt types, terms, game play sessions etc. All that needed to be done between games was to hammer out what we wanted to try each game.

It could have been so easy and fruitful. We could have spent our time between games deciding what changes to make for the next game but instead we did - and you are doing now - start from scratch and attempt to rewrite the constitution. That takes so much out of everyone and drags on till there is a cry to start the game, rules be darned - and problems soon arise.

Why don't you all go back to DGIII and use that constitution and play the flippin' game?

 

[Strider]

People like to change things, thinking that it will somehow make the game more exciting. Last demogame was a perfect example of that, and how it doesn't work. Use the same core, and build off of that core. This game has a weird obsession with shiny new things.

I still say we should do a Rome: Total War democracy game... these Civ3 demogames are just so boring.

 

[Nobody]

when looking at the old demogames i though either dg2 or 3 were the best (constitutions) the one that was total and explained everything, with big code of laws and standards

 

[donsig]

when looking at the old demogames i though either dg2 or 3 were the best (constitutions) the one that was total and explained everything, with big code of laws and standards

But there were problems with the DG2 constitution that were fixed in the DGIII constitution. The idea was to also fix the problems with the DG2 Code of Laws and Code of Standards but we never quite got around to it. IIRC we started the process then the Aztecs came in and ruined all our work.

My point is the DGIII constitution should have been used for all subsequent demogames. Between DGs we should have been re-writing the Code of Laws to refelct the expiriments we wanted to try in each game. The stumbling block there was always those who wanted / needed a complete set of rules from the git-go. It's too big a task (as we found out in DG2). Nobody wanted to just get a core Code of Laws in place to start and pass more laws as we needed them. (Of course I don't mean *Nobody* specifically. I'm talking about *nobody* in general. Just had to capitalize nobody since it started the sentence. )

 

[Nobody]

Nobody wanted to just get a core Code of Laws in place to start and pass more laws as we needed them. (Of course I don't mean *Nobody* specifically. I'm talking about *nobody* in general. Just had to capitalize nobody since it started the sentence.

lol nobody knows nothing

 

[zorven]

Only here could a phrase like *nobody but Nobody* actually make sense.

Might I suggest that whatever lapse you're talking about stems from the fact that it gets rather boring re-inventing the wheel every demogame? There is no reason to re-write a constitution every demogame. We had a great constitution at the start of DGIII. That document had evolved over the course of the first two demogames. It was flexible enough to serve as a framework for each and every succeeding demogame if the DG community had seen fit to use it. Within it's framework there was ample room to expiriment with different governemnt types, terms, game play sessions etc. All that needed to be done between games was to hammer out what we wanted to try each game.

It could have been so easy and fruitful. We could have spent our time between games deciding what changes to make for the next game but instead we did - and you are doing now - start from scratch and attempt to rewrite the constitution. That takes so much out of everyone and drags on till there is a cry to start the game, rules be darned - and problems soon arise.

Why don't you all go back to DGIII and use that constitution and play the flippin' game?

Right on, donsig.

 

[DaveShack]

For future reference, votes on the Constitution must be from registered citizens. Not that it makes any difference in the result, but three people who voted YES are not registered.

 

[Furiey]

For those who can't find it and may well as a result not realise that they have to re-register for DG7 for their vote in this poll to be valid, the Citizen Registry for DG7 has already been moved to the DG7 Main Forum here.

 

[GenMarshall]

For future reference, votes on the Constitution must be from registered citizens. Not that it makes any difference in the result, but three people who voted YES are not registered.

So that means we can just minus 3 from the 10 . So No actualy wins and this consitution returns back to the drawing boards .

 

[Bootstoots]

Presumably a tied vote would result in this constitution's rejection anyway, so it wouldn't matter whether or not we counted the unregistered citizens' votes.