On the subject of changing constitutions / rulesets, one thing that certain people seem to forget every time is that a majority voted for each change. Debate on what to change started up before the previous game finished, and included widespread participation. If the previous game was so perfect, then why did a majority consistently vote to change it?
I can't speak to the DG1->DG2 transition. After DG2 a majority thought the rules were too burerocratic. There were rules on who had to open a thread, when, and where. The contents of specific threads were written into the rules, and theoretically a PI (public investigation) could be started if someone forgot to dot their I's and cross their T's. (well, that's a bit of an exaggeration but hopefully it gets the point across...
)
The DG3 constitution bordered on the ultimate in simplicity. None of that low-level detail that people hated was included. Things were smooth sailing (generally at least) for two months. Then we elected a President who took the approach that if the law did not spell something out then there was no rule on the subject and thus the highest elected official (himself) could decide in the absense of input from others. All hell broke loose, with the equivalent of a mutiny where the other elected officials either refused to post instructions, or posted instructions which effectively tied the DP's hands. Moderator intervention was required to keep the game going. Don't forget however that
a majority of the people, including many of the would-be mutineers, voted for the constitutional chanegs which opened the door for this crisis.
DG4 brought back some of the details from DG2 but not all. We also dabbled in combining offices in response to the observation that fewer elections in DG3 were contested than in earlier DGs. We started when the ruleset was not complete, which many people reacted to as though it was the first time, but in reality this was nothing new -- DG1 got a term or two in before there was a real ruleset, a fact which many people conveniently forgot.
Again, a majority of the citizens voted for the DG4 rules.
DG5 was again more like DG2 with even more of the lower level procedures spelled out. We tried to reduce the political effect of PI's / CC's by making the associate justice positions non-specific instead of a JA and PD. We also added and removed offices during the game. DG5 was notable in that it once again started without a complete ruleset, and the first two terms were marred by controversy in the Judicial branch after poorly conducted elections (although correct according to the then-current law) left the makeup of the judiciary in limbo.
DG6 started out as being a minor tweak to the DG5 ruleset. A well-intentioned but not fully supported attempt to breathe life into the game by changing things around a bit resulted in the current "Strategic / Tactical" system. It didn't help matters that the founder of the system got hit by a mountain of responsibilities at work, maxing out with 18 hours a day of work time during the critical period when the Constitution should have been written. Efforts by others (which never did get the recognition they truly deserved BTW) came up short when the moderator-imposed deadline (in this case third time's
NOTa charm) passed. Subsequent modifications to the rules brought the setup back to within a couple of minor differences between it and the "traditional" system, although the small number of remaining differences and the functional equivalency between this system and the old one has never been recognized by its detractors. The key thing to remember is that
a (small) majority of citizens voted for the current system and when faced with a straight-up vote on changing it
a larger majority voted to stay the course.
OK, now that this very high level, low detail history course is done, what do we need to do to make the next game work?
- It would really help if the constitutional discussion didn't seem like a cage match contest to the death. We are where we are because key members of the 49% minority refused to do anything constructive to help the process before the game started. Saying (my paraphrase) "I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure this new idea doesn't work" is not conducive to interpersonal harmony, and probably frightened off a substantial number of potential players. The individual thus paraphrased will undoubtably say that is not what was meant, but the dictionary meanings of the words are clear enough.
- We need a setup which welcomes and maybe even enforces roleplay. Perhaps we need a "gentleman's (lady's) agreement" to not mention "CIV game" parameters directly, but to couch them in terms appropriate for the mock citizens.
- We need to make the game itself easier to play. We get uncontested Presidential elections because most people don't fancy 3 hour (6 hour in the later game) play sessions. I offered a solution -- rotating DP assignments instead of having to sign up for a month of DP work. This got shouted down as a bad idea because it represented too big a change
, but look at the biggest reason people decline nominations and it is clear that people don't have multiple days per week to dedicate to the game.
- We need something other than an everyday game of Civ, to draw in a better mixture of new and old, experienced and inexperienced, Deity and Regent players. A fullpack mod might do the trick (if 10 people had modems I'd consider shipping them a CD with the mod -- but 100 is a bit much), so might some kind of multi-player game. A variant is less likely to be accepted because it will excite some people but totally alienate others.
- We need to get even more serious about personal attacks. The provocateurs of the DG deserve as much scrutiny as their targets receive when the inevitable backlash occurs.
- In the past certain individuals have had a tendency to unilaterally make very unpopular decisions which appeared to exceed their legal authority. At least one such "citizen+" has received advice on how to get the same thing done without pushing other peoples buttons, and seems to have taken the advice. Hopefully we won't get any mandates this time around which are not supported by a majority or a very large minority, and the correct messenger will be chosen for potentially unpopular decisions.
[/edit]
