The Disaster Avoidance Thread

[DaveShack]

Here's what I think I'm hearing, let me paraphrase and see what responses come back.

It is less fun now than it used to be, for some people. The source of that reduction in interest levels is the addition of long-term planning to the game. What that set of people liked about the old system and miss in this one is deciding each and every thing as an individual decision. With the new setup, there is less interest in giving input on the long-term objective because someone could come back in a week or two and not have missed anything.​

Here's what I don't understand. Look at this thread, this external consulate thread, this settlement thread, this domestic thread, and this commerce thread. Help me understand the problem by explaining, without using the government structure itself as the argument, why participating in these discussions is less fun than the DG5 style ones. So far you've just been saying the structure is causing the problem, without explaining why.

Different subject, it seems you're complaining about micromanaging. I thought polling every tech one by one, polling settlement locations, polling whether to use entertainers or lux slider, polling individual trades, essentially polling everything, was micromanaging. That might be fun for the non-elected citizens but it's a terrible way to run a government if you're an elected leader who can do nothing else but post a poll, and then post instructions to do what the poll says. After factoring in the higher number of elections, we have more people interested in being leaders this game than last.

Now if you're complaining about micromanaging in the sense that some of us are trying to get quality decisions which will result in a well-played game, then you're right. The game may be lost if the few people who seem to actually care if we're making good decisions decide to just shut up and let you all commit mass suicide.

I will repeat what I have said over and over again. I will be a leader of whatever government the people choose. I don't boycott discussions because I disagree with how the work is divided up. If the people voted tomorrow to abandon the current structure and start a new one, I would happily continue opening TCITs and playing the game using the valid instructions contained in them.

 

[Strider]

Help me understand the problem by explaining, without using the government structure itself as the argument, why participating in these discussions is less fun than the DG5 style ones. So far you've just been saying the structure is causing the problem, without explaining why.

I went through it all already, and explained where the government structure is to blame. Why? Well the first reason is that most of these discussions are rather pointless, one or two covers issues so far ahead that were going to have to re-plan it all over again anyway. Another reason, is that there is no real point to even post inside of half of these discussions. The strategic leaders posts there goals for the term, I look them over, case closed. I know know what were doing for the next two weeks. I don't have to comment, and don't feel the need to comment.

Different subject, it seems you're complaining about micromanaging. I thought polling every tech one by one, polling settlement locations, polling whether to use entertainers or lux slider, polling individual trades, essentially polling everything, was micromanaging. That might be fun for the non-elected citizens but it's a terrible way to run a government if you're an elected leader who can do nothing else but post a poll, and then post instructions to do what the poll says. After factoring in the higher number of elections, we have more people interested in being leaders this game than last.

Were going over atleast every aspect of the game two or three times. Strategic goes over it, and then tatical goes over it again (and surprisingly comes up with the same decision!).

Include in the fact that were now planning ahead for things that will never happen, and it's just being redundant. Our leaders no longer have to search for some other aspect of there elected poistion to discuss, all they have to do is discuss the exact same aspect over and over again, and hell, no one will care much less notice!

Most of the discussions you listed above have already been discussed (discounting the fact that they don't have enough information inside of them to make an informed decision). I've already said my bit inside of the first discussions of this type, if they really want to know what I think of the issue they can go back and look it over. The only discussion that is redundant out of those four is the Settler thread, and well, if it was then we'd really have some bad problems.

 

[Chieftess]

I think one reason might be that we're pinched in, and the other being that we're pinched in on emperor level. Perhaps it's also because some don't have Civ3 Conquests, and they feel like they can't participate as much. (Then there's the moonlight chats... )

In DG2, it was emperor level, and we were slowly slipping behind in techs (doesn't seem to be a problem this game!) while preparing for a war. It did look lost, and people started to lose interest (after our first archers and swords died). I think it's a similar situation here, except that:

1 - We're pinned in, which little room to manuver.
2 - We've got a potential runaway AI on our hands, who's already got a food bonus!

 

[DaveShack]

Another reason, is that there is no real point to even post inside of half of these discussions. The strategic leaders posts there goals for the term, I look them over, case closed. I know know what were doing for the next two weeks. I don't have to comment, and don't feel the need to comment.

Those goals are supposed to be the starting point of the discussion, not the ending point. Are you saying you agree 100% with everthing the strategic leaders are posting? Should we post intentional flaws so you can help correct them?

In a nutshell here is what would change if we switched over today.

• Make the Military Commander and Commerce (trade) consul jobs.
• Merge Expansion into Domestic
• Merge Infrastructure into the President
• Consuls post instructions

Net result: 2 fewer people have jobs. How would this not result in the same discussions over the same issues?

 

[Strider]

Those goals are supposed to be the starting point of the discussion, not the ending point. Are you saying you agree 100% with everthing the strategic leaders are posting? Should we post intentional flaws so you can help correct them?

In a nutshell here is what would change if we switched over today.

• Make the Military Commander and Commerce (trade) consul jobs.
• Merge Expansion into Domestic
• Merge Infrastructure into the President
• Consuls post instructions

Net result: 2 fewer people have jobs. How would this not result in the same discussions over the same issues?

No idea what your talking about, and it would be more along the lines of 4 people who won't have jobs. Why? Because we now have a better placement of the executive duties. Instead of the tatical layer being almost dominated by one elected official, we now have a fairly even split. Add in that we don't have 8 elected officials over differant aspects of the game, instead of 10 leaders who share the duties with another elected official. So we now have 3 extra elected officials who will be discussing and polling a differant aspect.

Also, I doubt we will be switching mid-term, but would rather wait for the end of the term. So not a single elected official will lose there job.

 

[DaveShack]

Quoting myself, just the important part this time so you can't respond selectively.

Those goals are supposed to be the starting point of the discussion, not the ending point. Are you saying you agree 100% with everthing the strategic leaders are posting? Should we post intentional flaws so you can help correct them?

 

[GenMarshall]

Quoting myself, just the important part this time so you can't respond selectively.

Is it just me or does Dave like to quote himself?

 

[Strider]

You responded selectively also, heck you skipped over the large majority of my post and responded to just one little aspect. So I'll make you a deal, you respond to one of my several quotes you skipped, and I'll respond to this one.

No idea what your talking about, and it would be more along the lines of 4 people who won't have jobs. Why? Because we now have a better placement of the executive duties. Instead of the tatical layer being almost dominated by one elected official, we now have a fairly even split. Add in that we don't have 8 elected officials over differant aspects of the game, instead of 10 leaders who share the duties with another elected official. So we now have 3 extra elected officials who will be discussing and polling a differant aspect.

--------

Now to the point of replying to your quote as I promised:

So, your saying that these "goals" aren't really goals? This just solidify's part of my discussion! Fairly ironic that you took extra care to point this out. So, were planning something, or setting goals as in this case, for no apparant reason? Only to change that fake goal acouple days later?

 

[DaveShack]

OK, I'll be happy to discuss another point.

No idea what your talking about, and it would be more along the lines of 4 people who won't have jobs. Why? Because we now have a better placement of the executive duties. Instead of the tatical layer being almost dominated by one elected official, we now have a fairly even split. Add in that we don't have 8 elected officials over differant aspects of the game, instead of 10 leaders who share the duties with another elected official. So we now have 3 extra elected officials who will be discussing and polling a differant aspect.

To be completely honest, I didn't fully understand that statement so didn't reply to it, however since you insist.

Right now we have 4 consuls (Domestic, External, R&T, Culture) and 4 Directors (Expansion, Military, Infrastructure, Commerce). I described making Military and Commerce consuls, and eliminating Expansion and Infrastructure by merging them into other positions. To change from a total of 8 people to a total of 6 is a reduction by 2, if I haven't completely forgotton how to do math. The changes I described are enough to transform the current government into the old one -- well, into a slightly tweaked old style.

Now to the point of replying to your quote as I promised:

So, your saying that these "goals" aren't really goals? This just solidify's part of my discussion! Fairly ironic that you took extra care to point this out. So, were planning something, or setting goals as in this case, for no apparant reason? Only to change that fake goal acouple days later?

Hmm, what I said was that the leader posts what s/he thinks are the goals, but must have citizen input before those goals become a plan. The goals a leader posts at the beginning of a discussion thread are the beginning of a discussion, not the end of the discussion. Mad-bax posting a goal of war by 700BC does not mean that is what we're going to do. He is asking for citizen input on whether that is the right plan. If you fail to provide your input on that question, then you cannot complain later if you didn't want war. There is absolutely no difference in this respect between this and previous demogames.

 

[DaveShack]

Is it just me or does Dave like to quote himself?

Dave has had training and experience in dealing with debate tactics which divert attention from his desired point to another point, and in getting the debate refocused on the original point.

 

[Bertie]

I used to own a wonderful house that was a replica of a Welsh cottage, and had architectural features coming out the wazoo (whatever a wazoo may be). Anyway, some of those great architectural features were numerous stained glass windows throughout the house. One of those windows had a message inlaid in the window which read: “The Past is Gone. Carpe Diem.”

I’m no particular fan of this demogame’s constitution. And perhaps previous demogames had better ones. For whatever reason there’s an ill-defined nostalgia about ‘the way things used to be. (Wipe sleeve across nose.) Never used to have these problems in the old days. Ah-yep yep yep.’

So why in heck was the constitution ever changed from the first demogame? (Please don’t answer.)

Anyway, despite the numerous flaws and somewhat confusing nature of our current constitution, I believe I’ve finally figured it out. It’s not ideal and should probably be changed at some point; but it’s workable. The current constitution will permit us to play a pretty interesting game.

Let me make clear: I’m not opposed to reform and actually support it. But I’m not playing “constitution.” I’m playing demogame.

The “perfect” doesn’t exist, never has, and never will. If we wait until we create the “perfect” constitution, our grandkids will be six feet under before we, in SaaM’s words, “Smash the jolly old button, Old Chap!”

Strider, I respect you enormously as a demogame player. But read your signature. We’re all here. Where are you?

The past is gone; carpe diem.

 

[DaveShack]

Well said, Bertie!

 

[Strider]

To be completely honest, I didn't fully understand that statement so didn't reply to it, however since you insist.

Right now we have 4 consuls (Domestic, External, R&T, Culture) and 4 Directors (Expansion, Military, Infrastructure, Commerce). I described making Military and Commerce consuls, and eliminating Expansion and Infrastructure by merging them into other positions. To change from a total of 8 people to a total of 6 is a reduction by 2, if I haven't completely forgotton how to do math. The changes I described are enough to transform the current government into the old one -- well, into a slightly tweaked old style.

It's not the old style, the only thing in common is the same number of executive type poistions.

Hmm, what I said was that the leader posts what s/he thinks are the goals, but must have citizen input before those goals become a plan. The goals a leader posts at the beginning of a discussion thread are the beginning of a discussion, not the end of the discussion. Mad-bax posting a goal of war by 700BC does not mean that is what we're going to do. He is asking for citizen input on whether that is the right plan. If you fail to provide your input on that question, then you cannot complain later if you didn't want war. There is absolutely no difference in this respect between this and previous demogames.

Plans are how you achieve goals, goals are not the preliminary to the creation of a plan. In the case you listed above, Mad-bax is not forming plans (or goals for that matter) over the differant aspects of his department. He is forming plans only over these "goals" he listed inside of the thread.

Once again Daveshack, your wrong. There is a huge differance between this demogame thep previous ones. Take a look at Curufinwe's post for several examples.

 

[Strider]

Anyway, despite the numerous flaws and somewhat confusing nature of our current constitution, I believe I’ve finally figured it out. It’s not ideal and should probably be changed at some point; but it’s workable. The current constitution will permit us to play a pretty interesting game.

Meanwhile, the constitution I'd prefer us to have is the same one that we've used for every demogame up to this one. The constitution I am pushing for has had 2 years of testing and fixes done to it. The current constitution will do nothing but make us dig ourselves deeper into these so called "holes" every term. Why keep something that obviously isn't working, when there is something that is already proven to work?

If you want to see what constitution I'm talking about, here you go.

Strider, I respect you enormously as a demogame player. But read your signature. We’re all here. Where are you?

Funny how you used my sig. Incase you don't know what that really means, it's talking about how someone is telling there lover that there "be here" waiting for them.

Where am I? I'm trying to dig everyone out of the huge hole there digging themselves in, and doing it the only way I know how to.

 

[DaveShack]

Strider mentions alienation, and yes, I do feel that. The game has grown too complex for anyone to simply join in at any time, discouraging both new players, as well as the return of the old such as myself.

Why? I see absolutely no difference between this game and the last one. We have people who are elected to lead. They put out an idea, and ask the people for comment. After the people comment, we play some turns. How is what we're doing different than what we did last time? I would do almost anything to help you feel less alienated but none of the people who say that are willing to say why they say it. Strider seems to be alienated because we're not playing the old system and that seems to be the only reason.

Strider is correct in his insistence that the problem, both of the lack of interest in the demogame and of how poorly we're doing, comes from the organization of the game. Only through changing that, can we fix this problem in full. Temporary solutions are like band-aids, temporary, cosmetic, and in the end utterly worthless. We need to and must change the game organization.

Again, what is it about the organization? How can the organization affect your ability to join in the discussions on the game itself?

 

[Curufinwe]

I stated that this has been going on for some time. In fact, now that I think of it part of it began under Shaitan with his obsession over money in the RPG, which ruined it for some time. As for how organization can affect that, I'm not sure, but it remains a fact whether or not I can explain it thoroughly. And I'm not alone. I'll think about it all, and respond more adequately later.

 

[Strider]

Tell me, what is the purpose of long term planning? Well if we seperate that phrase down, to plan is the "intended process of getting from one set of circumstances to another." Now, Long-term would imply that we are creating a process to get ourselves from our current sitution to a sitution far away.

Now, all plans have to first take a form as an abstract idea, and it will stay in the form untill it is used. Throughout demogame history, there have been hundreds if not thousands of abstract ideas. A large amount of these ideas never turned into formal plans. While the failure of some of these ideas are correct, many of them were still very good ideas.

Inorder for a formal plan to work correctly, it must be flexible and able to adapt according to the current sitution. It would be hard to create a singular plan that is flexible enough to withstand the test of time, as such it is neccassary to create a plan within a plan, or rather a web of plans.

--------

This government structure, this ingenious form of long term planning. Does it achieve it's purpose? Does it favor the creation of abstract ideas, or even the foundation of flexible formal plans? No, it produces a mockery of imaginative planning, instead of making a flexible plan, we merely scrap our plans and create a new one every time something changes. It creates a simulation that our imaginations grasp upon with blind infantile chastity.

What is it about the framework of the current system that invites disaster? It's the conceived formation of long-term planning that betrays the senses and alienates the mind. It's the result of the perceptions telling you that everything is all right, but your mind telling you that something is not quite right. The organization is unbalanced and redundant, betraying all logical thought, and confusing the mind as to how it still exists. Intruth, it would have fallen long ago, if not for the strong-mind of it's creationary.

However, Daveshack you have an inability to understand that we do not think like you. You created the current structure, the abstract idea, and in your mind you know how it should work. It's impossible to transfer everything from the mind to the written word though, and the rest of us miss alot of the components which make the plan, as a whole, work.

The flag is up, and the dawn is red.

 

[Curufinwe]

That was a lot of brilliant rhetoric Strider, and I have a number of comments.

In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with the way the demogame is run now (do NOT take that out of context). Howeever, despite the fact that it's fine in general, in these specific circumstances something is not workign as it should. That is why there needs to be a thread called 'disaster avoidance', why there is rampant alienation, and why the constitution is regarded by many as ridiculous. In your blind adherence to it, you miss out on what is most important, the game. Not Civilization, we could run the demogame on any game, anything at all, and still do fine. But the game structure, as it currently is under the current circumstances, does not work. I love the idea of an infinitely complex web of plans, but, both from what I've been told and what I have seen, the current system has not, isn't, and will not in the near future, work.

The alternative that Strider suggests is more sufficient, though perhaps a blend of the two would work better. A flexible plan, watched over by the people, executed by their servants, amended as necessary, but staying true to the original plan and intent, while able to adapt to any circumstances.

Now, Bertie, you mention the old constitution and nostalgia. I have neither, but I still reject the status quo. Do not equate the two. Furthermore, constitutions must be living, they must adapt to the circumstances. The old constitution was changed for many reasons, which I have never delved deeply into, much to my regret. The current one should be abolished and replaced for a similar reason, times change. The primary purpose of the DG has failed, and must be replaced.

But, while nostalgia is inherently reactionary and contrary to my principles and those of Strider, one can learn from the past while looking to the future. What was good about the previos constitutions, what was wrong with them, how can we make them better. We must ask ourselves these questions at all times, and adapt accordingly.

Now, to return to Daveshack, I fail to understand your argument about how there hasn't been a change. You've stated that the servant presents their proposal to the people, who then do with it as they see fit. Good, that's fine. However, what you fail to see is that, as great as that is in theory, there is something fundamentally wrong with it. The fact that plans are so mutable, while democratic and wonderful in theory, leads to over-complication and anomie, as well as alienation. Democracy as a principle is inclusive and abhors all alienation, and therefore the status quo is contrary to that, as well as to the primary and secondary purposes of the demogame. I've proposed, over time in bits and pieces, that at the beginnign of each game certain things be adopted, given the force of the constitution, that we hold to, through convention or law, throughout the game, relating to the secondary purpose directly. This is in many ways like Striders proposal for a flexible plan, amended and adapting, but still, in some fundamental, deep sense, immutable. It is apparent that under the current systems that is the best, if not the only, answer, and I throw my conditional support behind Strider in this.

 

[DaveShack]

Now, to return to Daveshack, I fail to understand your argument about how there hasn't been a change. You've stated that the servant presents their proposal to the people, who then do with it as they see fit. Good, that's fine. However, what you fail to see is that, as great as that is in theory, there is something fundamentally wrong with it. The fact that plans are so mutable, while democratic and wonderful in theory, leads to over-complication and anomie, as well as alienation.

But every demogame has been played with mutable plans. In DG5 we practially polled every instruction of every turnchat. How much more mutable can you get? In effect there was no plan at all, just a sequence of atomic decisions. Is that what you advocate, playing like a total democracy with no forethough?

 

[Curufinwe]

Now, to return to Daveshack, I fail to understand your argument about how there hasn't been a change. You've stated that the servant presents their proposal to the people, who then do with it as they see fit. Good, that's fine. However, what you fail to see is that, as great as that is in theory, there is something fundamentally wrong with it. The fact that plans are so mutable, while democratic and wonderful in theory, leads to over-complication and anomie, as well as alienation.

Seeing as how you so enjoy quoting yourself, I should engage in some of the same, since you took me out of context, showing you either didnt' understand me (which would be my fault) or deliberately chose not to (which would be yours). Read the last sentence there 'the fact that plans are so mutable... leads to overcomplication and anomie, as well as alienation'. Plain and simple, atomism as you put it, under the current circumstances, leads to anomie and alienation.

Now, you stated, if it worked before, what's wrong now. You fail to see something, again either by limitation or by choice, which is that circumstances change. The structure can not stand unchanged, if it does not meet certain criteria. As I've stated time and time again, the current structure fails to meet either the primary purpose of the demogame or the secondary of winning at Civilization III. The fact that a thread had to be initiated to avoid a disaster, and that their are growing elements of dissent and derision against the current structure shows how it fails each. What worked before can not necessarily work again. That is, in and of itself, something which is inherently contrary to the principles you stated before, that of being mutable. If we are to, at all times, make things mutable, we are, by necessitating that, having nsomething fixed. That is clearly contrary to your supposed principles, but contrary to the purposes of the demogame. Again, the current structure is failing, and I reiterate my conditional support for Strider.