Things on the agenda

Chieftess

Moderator
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Messages
24,160
Location
Baltimore
This is what we should really be doing, especially to bring in more players, and to bring back the ones that left.

1 - Have a backbone ruleset that we'll use for every demogame. This includes what posistions there are, how noms/elections are held, how turnchats work, and how the game will progress. This should be static, and cut out atleast 33% of the legal bickering that goes on.

2 - Mimic the game. This means having all of the advisors (science and culture should be brought back). Yes, they may be "slow positions", but they're perfect for someone who doesn't have much time on their hands, and should be advertised as such. Culture, atleast, should be given a more forum-responsibility in that they keep track of the history, and top provinces in the game. (Try to keep the names the same, too...) The origanal intent of advisors was to Control what the ingame advisor sees on their advisor screen. (This is why domestic controlled the budget and sliders).

3 - Be more inclusive. I've been watching the demogame become more and more buerocratic and elitist (few posistions that can really do anything). This means expanding the posistions, and allowing runner ups to be deputies. It's less work for the winner to find someone to be the deputy.

4 - Have world-based provinces. That is, the larger the map, the more cities you need in your province. The larger the landmass, the more cities you need. The smaller the landmass, the less cities you need. For example, a 60% pangaea on a huge world would require 15-20 cities per province. A standard world with 80% archipelago might only need 5-7 cities per province. This is to prevent the problem of having too many provinces, which we saw at the end of DG1, and during DG2. We techincally didn't have that problem last term since the invasion of the other continent went rather quickly, and we didn't exactly have a domestic advisor.

5 - PIs/CCs. These worked perfectly in DG2. A citizen posted a complaint, in which a PI thread was posted within 24 hours. Discussion was about 48 hours long or so, then immediately, a guilty/innocence poll was made, followed by a sentencing poll if needed. They only took 5-7 days to complete, not like 5-7 months now. Yes, there's a remedy phase, which seemed a little too secretive for my liking, but posting the whole PI proceedings in the forum was part of the fun in DG1 and 2.

6 - Legalese. This was the bane of DG4. For 2 terms, 80% of the threads were either, reviews (labeled with criptic letters, like JR1_1B3a2D). It really cluttered the forum with probably 10 recent reviews, and only 2 or 3 discussions that seemed to die after a day. I think the problem here is that people were so pre-occupied in following the judicial reviews, or debating, that they simply forgot the game.

7 - Don't restrict instructions to just being in a turnchat thread 1 hour before the turnchat. If an advisor doesn't post, then the president can find a new advisor. The reasoning is that, not everyone is waiting to see what everyone has posted. Some governor, or advisor postings may conflict with another advisor. (see my post in the other thread on some of the reasons). Instructions should still be followed as long as they're backed by the will of the people, whether through discussion or polls. This could easily be checked. Even if an advisor doesn't post an instruction (there can be many reasons - something came up in RL, Internet connection isn't working, user was banned, etc.), discussion and polls should still be followed.

8 - Advisory and spot votes. I can hear many of you cringing, but bear with me. First, Advisory Votes. The president can give one of these (i.e., lack of discussion, and instructions), but these votes are not binding. Second, Spot Votes. Suppose an advisor gives an instruction that's impossible to carry out. (i.e., a worker in 1 when the town grows to size 2 in 5 turns (the president, or domestic could adjust the queues accordingly), or if a trade with the Egyptians can't be carried out because the Japanese declared war on them, blocking the trade route).

9 - Give advisors more control during the turnchats. The reason the turnchats stopped so frequently in terms 1 and 2 was because no one had control over anything. If one little thing was off, the chat stopped. Advisors are elected for a reason. As it stands now, advisors and governors are techincally not even needed. The president can make any decision as long as there's no instructions (another reason why they should look at discussions and polls). Even deputies should take over automatically if the advisor has to leave the turnchat for some reason (i.e., turnchat took longer than expected, and the advisor needs to sleep, go to work/school, eat, etc.).
 
I agree with those, except for the provinces. Lets have provinces be geographically based, rather than size based. A small island with two cities could be a province, while a large plain with ten could be as well. This would result in a broad range of governor positions, as well as more realism. Other than that I agree fully (I put your thing about the advisors into my proposed constitution).
 
Nice outline, CT. Though I don't agree with everything here, this is a good start.

Chieftess said:
This is what we should really be doing, especially to bring in more players, and to bring back the ones that left.

1 - Have a backbone ruleset that we'll use for every demogame. This includes what posistions there are, how noms/elections are held, how turnchats work, and how the game will progress. This should be static, and cut out atleast 33% of the legal bickering that goes on.

A nice thought, but there are no guarantees here. Rulesets have always been determined by the most active and most vocal members during the "off-season." A since those individuals are usually the hardcore legal type, we sometimes get rulesets that may extend beyond the interest of the average citizen.

Sooooo.......whoever is reading this now, make your voice heard. This is your best chance to help shape DG5 into a game yould enjoy playing.

Chieftess said:
2 - Mimic the game. This means having all of the advisors (science and culture should be brought back). Yes, they may be "slow positions", but they're perfect for someone who doesn't have much time on their hands, and should be advertised as such. Culture, atleast, should be given a more forum-responsibility in that they keep track of the history, and top provinces in the game. (Try to keep the names the same, too...) The origanal intent of advisors was to Control what the ingame advisor sees on their advisor screen. (This is why domestic controlled the budget and sliders).

I have gone back and forth on this issue, and ultimately don't feel that Advisor titles are a deal-breaker when it comes to game enjoyment.

Chieftess said:
3 - Be more inclusive. I've been watching the demogame become more and more buerocratic and elitist (few posistions that can really do anything). This means expanding the posistions, and allowing runner ups to be deputies. It's less work for the winner to find someone to be the deputy.

Bah! ;) The winner of the race should get to choose his staff, and not be forced to accept his opponent(think Strider/donsig :D ) as his deputy.

Chieftess said:
4 - Have world-based provinces. That is, the larger the map, the more cities you need in your province. The larger the landmass, the more cities you need. The smaller the landmass, the less cities you need. For example, a 60% pangaea on a huge world would require 15-20 cities per province. A standard world with 80% archipelago might only need 5-7 cities per province. This is to prevent the problem of having too many provinces, which we saw at the end of DG1, and during DG2. We techincally didn't have that problem last term since the invasion of the other continent went rather quickly, and we didn't exactly have a domestic advisor.

I always thought we strived for this, and planned for it fairly well in previous games. And it usually doesn't become an issue until the very last part of the game, which IMHO is unavoidable. For this instances, we can either redistrict the provinces at that time or give the President control of all unincorporated(aka corrupt) provinces.

Chieftess said:
5 - PIs/CCs. These worked perfectly in DG2. A citizen posted a complaint, in which a PI thread was posted within 24 hours. Discussion was about 48 hours long or so, then immediately, a guilty/innocence poll was made, followed by a sentencing poll if needed. They only took 5-7 days to complete, not like 5-7 months now. Yes, there's a remedy phase, which seemed a little too secretive for my liking, but posting the whole PI proceedings in the forum was part of the fun in DG1 and 2.

I honestly believe that the DG4 system would have worked quite well if there were some genuine sustained interest in the Judiciary during the game. Plus I don't think the Judicial Branch fully recovered from the fallout of the first Judicial elections. Also, since this is a forum-based game, I never really agreed with the court retreating to the chatroom to discuss an outcome. Let 3 different judges post 3 opinions, and best of 3 wins. :D

Chieftess said:
6 - Legalese. This was the bane of DG4. For 2 terms, 80% of the threads were either, reviews (labeled with criptic letters, like JR1_1B3a2D). It really cluttered the forum with probably 10 recent reviews, and only 2 or 3 discussions that seemed to die after a day. I think the problem here is that people were so pre-occupied in following the judicial reviews, or debating, that they simply forgot the game.

I disliked the cryptic titles as well, but IIRC that protocol was not a part of our original ruleset. In the future, each JR or CC discussion should have the issue at hand clearly addressed in the title.

Chieftess said:
7 - Don't restrict instructions to just being in a turnchat thread 1 hour before the turnchat. If an advisor doesn't post, then the president can find a new advisor. The reasoning is that, not everyone is waiting to see what everyone has posted. Some governor, or advisor postings may conflict with another advisor. (see my post in the other thread on some of the reasons). Instructions should still be followed as long as they're backed by the will of the people, whether through discussion or polls. This could easily be checked. Even if an advisor doesn't post an instruction (there can be many reasons - something came up in RL, Internet connection isn't working, user was banned, etc.), discussion and polls should still be followed.

I too believe that the President should be allowed the discretion to decide jurisdiction on conflicting instructions. After all, the people elected him/her president! But of course, some checks and balances should also be in place. What should they be?

Chieftess said:
8 - Advisory and spot votes. I can hear many of you cringing, but bear with me. First, Advisory Votes. The president can give one of these (i.e., lack of discussion, and instructions), but these votes are not binding. Second, Spot Votes. Suppose an advisor gives an instruction that's impossible to carry out. (i.e., a worker in 1 when the town grows to size 2 in 5 turns (the president, or domestic could adjust the queues accordingly), or if a trade with the Egyptians can't be carried out because the Japanese declared war on them, blocking the trade route).

Advisory votes, fine. I also find it acceptable if the President disagrees with an advisory vote and stays his own course. But he/she should have a good explanation for the people, and be ready to face the music come election time.

Spot votes? Only if we adopted a system where we empowered the leaders we elect and didn't have the citizenry vote(aka possible veto) on each little thing. Another way to make it interesting would be to have political parties, where one party supported spot votes and another didn't. It would add another dynamic to the game that would support debate(which I think is a more important aspect of the DemoGame than the actual savegame). ;)

Chieftess said:
9 - Give advisors more control during the turnchats. The reason the turnchats stopped so frequently in terms 1 and 2 was because no one had control over anything. If one little thing was off, the chat stopped. Advisors are elected for a reason. As it stands now, advisors and governors are techincally not even needed. The president can make any decision as long as there's no instructions (another reason why they should look at discussions and polls). Even deputies should take over automatically if the advisor has to leave the turnchat for some reason (i.e., turnchat took longer than expected, and the advisor needs to sleep, go to work/school, eat, etc.).

One again, I think this would work if we allowed advisor/governors to do the job they were elected to do.

Think about it. In most RL politics, the people do not get to vote on every little thing that comes down the pike. They elect a leader to decide these things for them based on promises they made at election time. If that leader drifts too far from his original rhetoric, then that can be rectified during the next election cycle.


In closing, the thing I feel this game needs the most is dedication. In order to make this game the perfect experience, we need to have people stick around to make it happen. So the real question is: How do we maintain citizen interest and pride?
 
Chieftess said:
1 - Have a backbone ruleset that we'll use for every demogame. This includes what posistions there are, how noms/elections are held, how turnchats work, and how the game will progress. This should be static, and cut out atleast 33% of the legal bickering that goes on.
You've hit your first problem in the first paragraph already, legal bickering about laws already in use will simply become legal bickering for rules that have existed before but do not in your later incarnations. Any possible solution will require not a legal document to mimic a real life one, but one that is more forum-user friendly, the punishments in the law books from the last few games are a pretty irrelevent thing to non-elected officials, wouldnt you agree? The only way to fix that is...well I have no idea, this is the nature of the demogame. The major thing Im trying to say here is that bureaucracy kills, and it has killed the demogame. You and I both know this.

2 - Mimic the game. This means having all of the advisors (science and culture should be brought back).
Awesome idea, I love it :great:

3 - Be more inclusive. I've been watching the demogame become more and more buerocratic and elitist (few posistions that can really do anything). This means expanding the posistions, and allowing runner ups to be deputies.
Runner up deputies are definitely, I think there should be communication between deputies and officials, including the requirement of the deputy to contribute to anything voted upon. If only in a superfical way. There is a dreaded and possibly disasterous method of reducing elitism in this game...and you wont like the idea... Term limits.

4 - Have world-based provinces. That is, the larger the map, the more cities you need in your province.
Definitely.

5 - PIs/CCs. These worked perfectly in DG2. A citizen posted a complaint, in which a PI thread was posted within 24 hours. Discussion was about 48 hours long or so, then immediately, a guilty/innocence poll was made, followed by a sentencing poll if needed.
Music to my ears, Ive been reading this demogame, because I refused to participate due to a few reasons. But this was a MAJOR part of my sentiment toward the demogame.

6 - Legalese. This was the bane of DG4.
It was the bane of demogame 3 as well Jen. There is far too much bureaucracy in the demogame, there needs to be rules that are easy to follow, and are capable of applying to an internet forum. No easy task, and will take delicate, tedious work on all those involved. Should I decide to participate in the next demogame I would definitely help with legalities.

7 - Don't restrict instructions to just being in a turnchat thread 1 hour before the turnchat. If an advisor doesn't post, then the president can find a new advisor.
This is a problem of advisors, advisors have to give a damn and do things they may not want to do because it takes time on a rather arbitrary thing. If this is the case then they should not have ran. I have zero tolerance for ineffective demogame advisors, a second reason I chose not to participate in this game. I resigned two of my elected positions because my schedule could not support the work involved with the demogame, and I would expect others to do the same.

8 - Advisory and spot votes. I can hear many of you cringing, but bear with me. First, Advisory Votes. The president can give one of these (i.e., lack of discussion, and instructions), but these votes are not binding. Second, Spot Votes. Suppose an advisor gives an instruction that's impossible to carry out. (i.e., a worker in 1 when the town grows to size 2 in 5 turns (the president, or domestic could adjust the queues accordingly), or if a trade with the Egyptians can't be carried out because the Japanese declared war on them, blocking the trade route).
Yes I did cringe at the thought of spot votes doing anything other than advising, I think it will all come down to what can be voted on, and what cannot. War cannot be voted on, worker movements can be voted on. Military alliance cannot be voted on, build queues can be voted on. Pop rushes cannot be voted on, monetary rushes can be voted on. Military alliances cannot be voted on, ROP can be voted on. Etc.. This is one of the tedious parts of what I mentioned before. It will require an absolute rule-book on what can and cannot be done in the turnchat. Personally, my opinions on the turnchat are the same as they always have been, however I do admit they are A) Fun to watch when everything goes right B) Fun to watch when everything goes wrong C) required to not move at a snails pace.

9 - Give advisors more control during the turnchats. The reason the turnchats stopped so frequently in terms 1 and 2 was because no one had control over anything. If one little thing was off, the chat stopped.
Return to the rules of demogames 1 and 2. Advisors should NOT have to be at the turnchats for their work to be followed, the turnchats do not dictate the forum, it is the other way around. This is a problem which needs to be addressed and resolved.
 
Chieftess said:
1 - Have a backbone ruleset that we'll use for every demogame. This includes what posistions there are, how noms/elections are held, how turnchats work, and how the game will progress. This should be static, and cut out atleast 33% of the legal bickering that goes on.

I couldn't agree more.

Chieftess said:
2 - Mimic the game. This means having all of the advisors (science and culture should be brought back).

I am with DZ on this in that it is non-issue to me. Afterall, I was the First Trade Minister (meaning I did absolutely nothing DG1 Term 1 as we took a while before we found anyone). However the advantage of using your suggestion is that the duties and responsibilities are pretty well defined as a start thanks to the in-game screen.

Chieftess said:
3 - Be more inclusive. I've been watching the demogame become more and more buerocratic and elitist (few posistions that can really do anything). This means expanding the posistions, and allowing runner ups to be deputies. It's less work for the winner to find someone to be the deputy.

I am fine either way on this one. I see the logic that the winner should be able to pick their backup (and obviously the runner up could decline to accept the deputy position).

Chieftess said:
4 - Have world-based provinces. That is, the larger the map, the more cities you need in your province. The larger the landmass, the more cities you need. The smaller the landmass, the less cities you need. For example, a 60% pangaea on a huge world would require 15-20 cities per province. A standard world with 80% archipelago might only need 5-7 cities per province.

Agree

Chieftess said:
5 - PIs/CCs. These worked perfectly in DG2. A citizen posted a complaint, in which a PI thread was posted within 24 hours. Discussion was about 48 hours long or so, then immediately, a guilty/innocence poll was made, followed by a sentencing poll if needed. They only took 5-7 days to complete, not like 5-7 months now. Yes, there's a remedy phase, which seemed a little too secretive for my liking, but posting the whole PI proceedings in the forum was part of the fun in DG1 and 2.

Whichever route we go, it is clear that there must be firm time limits, and that the CJ is given latitude to enforce those time limits. It is unacceptable to have these things stall because of lack of represenatation.

I say go back to having a Judge Advocate and Public Defender. The accused can still appoint their own defense, but if they don't do that, then the court assigns the PD to do it. The confrontations and anger involved with a lot of these PI/CC's simply intensifies if they are not dealt with in a timely manner.

Further, I prefer having the court post their opinions in public. I want to see what their opinions are (just as I would with any RL Appeals or Supreme court). I think that approach also helps to boost confidence in the impartiality of the court itself.

Chieftess said:
6 - Legalese. This was the bane of DG4. For 2 terms, 80% of the threads were either, reviews (labeled with criptic letters, like JR1_1B3a2D). It really cluttered the forum with probably 10 recent reviews, and only 2 or 3 discussions that seemed to die after a day. I think the problem here is that people were so pre-occupied in following the judicial reviews, or debating, that they simply forgot the game.

Fully agree. All court business should be public, and the issues at hand should be presented clearly.

Chieftess said:
7 - Don't restrict instructions to just being in a turnchat thread 1 hour before the turnchat. If an advisor doesn't post, then the president can find a new advisor. The reasoning is that, not everyone is waiting to see what everyone has posted. Some governor, or advisor postings may conflict with another advisor. (see my post in the other thread on some of the reasons). Instructions should still be followed as long as they're backed by the will of the people, whether through discussion or polls. This could easily be checked. Even if an advisor doesn't post an instruction (there can be many reasons - something came up in RL, Internet connection isn't working, user was banned, etc.), discussion and polls should still be followed.

I think the President should have the right to take action in places where things pop up, or unexpected events occurs, to fill the void of lack of instructions. If an advisor is not doing their jobs, in a forum based game, that issue should be resolved before the chat, not during it.

Chieftess said:
8 - Advisory and spot votes. I can hear many of you cringing, but bear with me. First, Advisory Votes. The president can give one of these (i.e., lack of discussion, and instructions), but these votes are not binding. Second, Spot Votes. Suppose an advisor gives an instruction that's impossible to carry out. (i.e., a worker in 1 when the town grows to size 2 in 5 turns (the president, or domestic could adjust the queues accordingly), or if a trade with the Egyptians can't be carried out because the Japanese declared war on them, blocking the trade route).

Yes, I am cringing. Let me address your example first. In the case of the trade, you simply don't make the trade. I don't think any vote is needed. For the worker/pop issue, that is a bad advisor instruction, flood plain/jungle disease, or we are in the middle of a war and town is getting bombarded. No matter the reason, the President should simply be allowed to take action as per #7 above.

I hate spot votes. They give binding power to those who attend turn chats over those who use the forums. If we want to run a turn chat based Demo Game then lets do so, otherwise we should not open this door.

As for advisory votes, I would hope the DP is gathering/listening to the opinions of those in chat, and however they wish to gather that opinion is up to them. If there is an advisory vote process, then it must be emphasized that it has no binding power at all, and cannot be construed as the "will of the people" even if the President goes against a 9-0 vote.

Chieftess said:
9 - Give advisors more control during the turnchats. The reason the turnchats stopped so frequently in terms 1 and 2 was because no one had control over anything. If one little thing was off, the chat stopped. Advisors are elected for a reason. As it stands now, advisors and governors are techincally not even needed. The president can make any decision as long as there's no instructions (another reason why they should look at discussions and polls). Even deputies should take over automatically if the advisor has to leave the turnchat for some reason (i.e., turnchat took longer than expected, and the advisor needs to sleep, go to work/school, eat, etc.).

I agree. I think Advisors should have to post their instructions, and follow them before the chat, however, if unexpected events arise, and they are in chat, then why not let them manage their department?
 
Chieftess said:
1 - Have a backbone ruleset that we'll use for every demogame. This includes what posistions there are, how noms/elections are held, how turnchats work, and how the game will progress. This should be static, and cut out atleast 33% of the legal bickering that goes on.
Agreed.

Chieftess said:
2 - Mimic the game. This means having all of the advisors (science and culture should be brought back). Yes, they may be "slow positions", but they're perfect for someone who doesn't have much time on their hands, and should be advertised as such. Culture, atleast, should be given a more forum-responsibility in that they keep track of the history, and top provinces in the game. (Try to keep the names the same, too...) The origanal intent of advisors was to Control what the ingame advisor sees on their advisor screen. (This is why domestic controlled the budget and sliders).
It simplifies the tasks for the officials and makes clear what belongs where. It does have an unwanted effect (for me) as well; workers. They are part of the military-thread. Also it leaves the question open for rushing; who'se responsibility is that ?

Chieftess said:
3 - Be more inclusive. I've been watching the demogame become more and more buerocratic and elitist (few posistions that can really do anything). This means expanding the posistions, and allowing runner ups to be deputies. It's less work for the winner to find someone to be the deputy.
I am against auto-appointing deputies this way. The elections has determined that the citizens do not want that person in that office.

Chieftess said:
4 - Have world-based provinces. That is, the larger the map, the more cities you need in your province. The larger the landmass, the more cities you need. The smaller the landmass, the less cities you need. For example, a 60% pangaea on a huge world would require 15-20 cities per province. A standard world with 80% archipelago might only need 5-7 cities per province. This is to prevent the problem of having too many provinces, which we saw at the end of DG1, and during DG2. We techincally didn't have that problem last term since the invasion of the other continent went rather quickly, and we didn't exactly have a domestic advisor.
I have no opinion on province-size. As long as the Governors can be overruled by the Domestic Advisor.

Chieftess said:
5 - PIs/CCs. These worked perfectly in DG2. A citizen posted a complaint, in which a PI thread was posted within 24 hours. Discussion was about 48 hours long or so, then immediately, a guilty/innocence poll was made, followed by a sentencing poll if needed. They only took 5-7 days to complete, not like 5-7 months now. Yes, there's a remedy phase, which seemed a little too secretive for my liking, but posting the whole PI proceedings in the forum was part of the fun in DG1 and 2.
Speed up the PI's and CC's. I have posted my thoughts about it here.

Chieftess said:
6 - Legalese. This was the bane of DG4. For 2 terms, 80% of the threads were either, reviews (labeled with criptic letters, like JR1_1B3a2D). It really cluttered the forum with probably 10 recent reviews, and only 2 or 3 discussions that seemed to die after a day. I think the problem here is that people were so pre-occupied in following the judicial reviews, or debating, that they simply forgot the game.
I don't get it, this language is too complicated for me.

Chieftess said:
7 - Don't restrict instructions to just being in a turnchat thread 1 hour before the turnchat. If an advisor doesn't post, then the president can find a new advisor. The reasoning is that, not everyone is waiting to see what everyone has posted. Some governor, or advisor postings may conflict with another advisor. (see my post in the other thread on some of the reasons). Instructions should still be followed as long as they're backed by the will of the people, whether through discussion or polls. This could easily be checked. Even if an advisor doesn't post an instruction (there can be many reasons - something came up in RL, Internet connection isn't working, user was banned, etc.), discussion and polls should still be followed.
I do like a dead-line for instructions as it gives the DP the time needed. I am not against a "proposal-status" a few hours before the scheduled TC, on which citizens can respond to and the office-holder can edit.

Chieftess said:
8 - Advisory and spot votes. I can hear many of you cringing, but bear with me. First, Advisory Votes. The president can give one of these (i.e., lack of discussion, and instructions), but these votes are not binding. Second, Spot Votes. Suppose an advisor gives an instruction that's impossible to carry out. (i.e., a worker in 1 when the town grows to size 2 in 5 turns (the president, or domestic could adjust the queues accordingly), or if a trade with the Egyptians can't be carried out because the Japanese declared war on them, blocking the trade route).
It is more democratic, but also less democratic. I prefer to let the responsible office-holder decide and in his/hers absence put it back to the forum, unless the DP can only really choose doing 1 thing (no logical alternatives).

Chieftess said:
9 - Give advisors more control during the turnchats. The reason the turnchats stopped so frequently in terms 1 and 2 was because no one had control over anything. If one little thing was off, the chat stopped. Advisors are elected for a reason. As it stands now, advisors and governors are techincally not even needed. The president can make any decision as long as there's no instructions (another reason why they should look at discussions and polls). Even deputies should take over automatically if the advisor has to leave the turnchat for some reason (i.e., turnchat took longer than expected, and the advisor needs to sleep, go to work/school, eat, etc.).
I agreed, but only if the office-holder has made an effort to post reasonable instructions is he/she allowed to change them if something unexpectedly blocks the instructions or makes them foolish. If the office-holder has made no attempt to post instructions, he/she has no say what to do in the TC.
 
What an excellent thread. I have read this one with more interest than any other thread of late. I don't have time to reply now, but I will later. It will take a lot of copy/paste as I'd like to respond to others, not just CT. :thumbsup:
 
Chieftess said:
This is what we should really be doing, especially to bring in more players, and to bring back the ones that left.

1 - Have a backbone ruleset that we'll use for every demogame. This includes what posistions there are, how noms/elections are held, how turnchats work, and how the game will progress. This should be static, and cut out atleast 33% of the legal bickering that goes on.
Agreed - see my proposal - simple and nails down the requirements.

2 - Mimic the game. This means having all of the advisors (science and culture should be brought back). Yes, they may be "slow positions", but they're perfect for someone who doesn't have much time on their hands, and should be advertised as such. Culture, atleast, should be given a more forum-responsibility in that they keep track of the history, and top provinces in the game. (Try to keep the names the same, too...) The origanal intent of advisors was to Control what the ingame advisor sees on their advisor screen. (This is why domestic controlled the budget and sliders).
Heck no. No reason for it whatsoever. Tell ya what - let's poll this. Again. But, if you poll this, be prepared to poll everything again. I have my strong preferences for certain areas, but have always agreed to go with what the majority has stated in the past. The last time we polled this, the majority did NOT want to do it. Either abide by that decision, or open up everything to a new poll.
3 - Be more inclusive. I've been watching the demogame become more and more buerocratic and elitist (few posistions that can really do anything). This means expanding the posistions, and allowing runner ups to be deputies. It's less work for the winner to find someone to be the deputy.
Two statements, completely unrelated. Fewer positions that can really do anything, so let's create more positions that do nothing! Yes, great solution there. No - identify the major tasks, group those that are logically related and go from there.

Deputies. Again, this was polled and the majority preferred the DG4 system. Let's flog the horse some more - it jumped the last time it was hit!
4 - Have world-based provinces. That is, the larger the map, the more cities you need in your province. The larger the landmass, the more cities you need. The smaller the landmass, the less cities you need. For example, a 60% pangaea on a huge world would require 15-20 cities per province. A standard world with 80% archipelago might only need 5-7 cities per province. This is to prevent the problem of having too many provinces, which we saw at the end of DG1, and during DG2. We techincally didn't have that problem last term since the invasion of the other continent went rather quickly, and we didn't exactly have a domestic advisor.
Ahh, back to the past again, are we? How about we use smaller maps, thus fewer cities. I have no problem with limiting the number of provinces, but 15-20 cities per? Good grief, we wouldn't have two provinces for centuries!
5 - PIs/CCs. These worked perfectly in DG2. A citizen posted a complaint, in which a PI thread was posted within 24 hours. Discussion was about 48 hours long or so, then immediately, a guilty/innocence poll was made, followed by a sentencing poll if needed. They only took 5-7 days to complete, not like 5-7 months now. Yes, there's a remedy phase, which seemed a little too secretive for my liking, but posting the whole PI proceedings in the forum was part of the fun in DG1 and 2.
Oh yes, such a wonderful system that was.

I'm going to try this again - the system in DG4 failed because of the CITIZENS, not the SYSTEM. And I don't blame them. The DG1/2/3 system resulted in incompentant representation and a popularity contest. DG4 was an attempt to fix that. Just in case you forgot, two cases, where citizens were willing to help out, were settled in a few days. Oh wait, that can't be right, now can it. After all, all cases took forever, right?

Making the entire process is NOT fun for most people. It's not fun for the accuser. It's not fun for the accused. It's not fun for most people. It stinks. The process is there for an unpleasant task - censuring another citizen. Let's try not to make a spectacle of it, m'kay?
6 - Legalese. This was the bane of DG4. For 2 terms, 80% of the threads were either, reviews (labeled with criptic letters, like JR1_1B3a2D). It really cluttered the forum with probably 10 recent reviews, and only 2 or 3 discussions that seemed to die after a day. I think the problem here is that people were so pre-occupied in following the judicial reviews, or debating, that they simply forgot the game.
Let's see, take a complex ruleset, created by many people, and add a few people delighting in finding loopholes. Start with multiple terms of poorly conducted elections, including ones started BEFORE THE RULES WERE FINISHED!!!!!!! Add a dash of dictatorial leaders that couldn't be bothered to ask input or lead discussions and the result - chaos. Total, absolute chaos.

No, I never, ever forgot the game. I doubt anyone else did. Believe it or not, there are two sides to this game, only one of which involves playing Civ 3. The other part is enjoyable to some of us. For those who don't like it, too bad. Deal with it. It's part of the social make-up of this game.
7 - Don't restrict instructions to just being in a turnchat thread 1 hour before the turnchat. If an advisor doesn't post, then the president can find a new advisor. The reasoning is that, not everyone is waiting to see what everyone has posted. Some governor, or advisor postings may conflict with another advisor. (see my post in the other thread on some of the reasons). Instructions should still be followed as long as they're backed by the will of the people, whether through discussion or polls. This could easily be checked. Even if an advisor doesn't post an instruction (there can be many reasons - something came up in RL, Internet connection isn't working, user was banned, etc.), discussion and polls should still be followed.
Ahh, so I should reward leaders for being lazy. Ohh, let's allow people to post minutes before hand. Oops, sorry DP - hope you weren't working on a pre-turn - just blasted your time schedule! Oh wait, my instructions conflict with someone else's? Ohh, that's too bad. We both waited until the last second!

And you - Mr. I don't attend the chat, but am still a citizen - you don't count anymore! Oh, you have an opinion on the instructions I posted in the chat? Tough! You should have been there, you miserable slacker! Work blocks your chat? Typical garbage excuse - you should be able to get around it! Slacker! Incompetent fool!
8 - Advisory and spot votes. I can hear many of you cringing, but bear with me. First, Advisory Votes. The president can give one of these (i.e., lack of discussion, and instructions), but these votes are not binding. Second, Spot Votes. Suppose an advisor gives an instruction that's impossible to carry out. (i.e., a worker in 1 when the town grows to size 2 in 5 turns (the president, or domestic could adjust the queues accordingly), or if a trade with the Egyptians can't be carried out because the Japanese declared war on them, blocking the trade route).
Cringe. Hear that? Yeah, it's all those citizen's that don't attend the chats. That's most of us, just in case you've forgotten. Try, try to actually respect us, m'kay?
9 - Give advisors more control during the turnchats. The reason the turnchats stopped so frequently in terms 1 and 2 was because no one had control over anything. If one little thing was off, the chat stopped. Advisors are elected for a reason. As it stands now, advisors and governors are techincally not even needed. The president can make any decision as long as there's no instructions (another reason why they should look at discussions and polls). Even deputies should take over automatically if the advisor has to leave the turnchat for some reason (i.e., turnchat took longer than expected, and the advisor needs to sleep, go to work/school, eat, etc.).
Honestly, I don't have too much of a problem with tweaks, etc being made. What I DON'T want is leaders ignoring the people and posting nothing, hopelessly vague or instructions that they prompting change in the chat. Term 1 and 2 had problems because the elected officials gave crap instructions. Blunt and accurate. Go back - read them. Read the comments from Rik in the chat logs. Absolutely rediculus what he had to go through. Even after BEGGING and giving specific examples on what to do better, they STILL didn't do it. Now, look at the later terms, much, much better.

I will rue the day instructions return to DG2/3 and DG4 term 1 and 2 quality.

-- Ravensfire
 
Ravensfire, I'm sorry the sarcasm and just about outright hostility I see in your post isn't helpful.

Anyway on to my own opinions
1 - Backbone ruleset
Agreed, posted about this earlier, at one point in the middle of DG4

2 - Mimic Game Advisors
Yes, and No. I believe certain advisors are key, and the others could be optional, among those "key" advisors are Domestic, Military, Trade.

Culture could be a historian, we need one in the game, esp. for new people who don't know all that happens, but in such a situation they're not really an advisor....

3 - Inclusiveness and Deputy runner ups
I'm not sure about the runner up system, I've had deputies who were unproductive and those which I'm proud to have had as my deputy, but never one which specifically was against my policies. If we used the runner up system again there would have to something to ensure the deputies didn't knowingly give advice which the leader would obviously oppose.

4 - Size of Provinces based on amount of Land Mass
more or less indifferent, I don't think the large amount of Provinces in DG1 were a problem except for maybe the governors who controled utterly unprodutive provinces.

5 - PI structure and speed
PI's do need to be swift, however since I haven't paid enough attention to DG4 to know about the problems you had with this I don't feel I can comment further due to my own ignorance of what prompted the concern

6 - Legalese the Bane of the Demogame
I agree Legalese, and too much concentration on law making, tweeking, and other legal proceedings can easily scare people off, and confuse them. I appreciate the need for it and the joy some people get from debating the law. However, every time I popped in on the DG4 during my college semester I noticed that the 3-5 top threads (and like 8/10 over all) seemed to always be arguing that article or this article or some other legal debate, which discoraged me from searching around for threads which actually had to deal with the game itself and policies.

7 - Accept Instructions after one hour before the turnchat
Instructions SHOULD be posted at least an hour (or 24 hours for a Forum critique) before the turnchat, to give the President time to get a head start on Preturn. HOWEVER, I do recognize the fact that sometimes an Advisor is unable to post in time for one reason or another, and that shouldn't be punished. This happened to me quite a few times, I expected to have time well before the turnchat, and thus don't post preliminary instructions waiting on a poll, more thread discussion, or just so I can think more, but due to RL, I was unable to do this till right before the turnchat.

I recognize ravensfire's concern about lazy Advisors and conflicts (btw such conflicts were a major reason for chat votes in DG1). Meaning that if no "deadline" before the turnchat is established, Advisors shouldn't be allowed to CONSISTANTLY post at the last minute, or decide not to post and SIMPLY attend the turnchat.

8 - Advisor/Spot Votes
I've always supported these, however, I only view these as a toll by the Designated Player to get everyone's opinion at the chat, IT BY NO MEANS REPRESENTS THE "WILL OF THE PEOPLE." If this was so, a declaration of war could be declared in a turnchat.... which it can't or at least shouldn't be allowed. And it is only to settle minor disputes.

The Designated Player is also not bound to the results of the poll. It's the equivilent of the Designated Player asking "What's everyone's opinion on this? And try to state it as directly as possible." Don't you think this would be useful say if Babylon demanded something of us? Not like we can save the game right there and take it to the forums, the decision must be made there, that decision rests with the DP, and he has a responcibility to listen to those who are able to voice their opinion, however shouldn't be bound to it based on the fact that only a fraction can attend.

9 - More control to Advisors in Chat
In chat, Advisors do deserve a degree of control to make decisions on the spot. Military advisor for example, can decide to pull back a 1/4 soldier to heal while an offensive continues or to keep it with the troops in the offensive to rest later depending on the location, and health of the rest of the units in the stack at any time. Sometimes things happen during the turnchat, which the Advisors were unable to forsee, or couldn't have given instructions in for EVERY possible situation.
 
Donovan Zoi said:
Bah! ;) The winner of the race should get to choose his staff, and not be forced to accept his opponent(think Strider/donsig :D ) as his deputy.

I gave up on that concept long before the infamous triple science leader election. Back in DG1 I ran against eyrei for Domestic Leader and ended up as his deputy. I think he's still upset that I didn't queue up an aqueduct in Eyr while he was away... :mischief:
 
1 - Backbone ruleset
Yeah, as long as it is a general constitution only. We do not need a detailed CoL or CoS. The bad ruleset we ended up with in DG4 was a knee jerk reaction to term three of DG3. We can play a demogame just fine with only a constitution.

2 - Mimic Game Advisors
No. There is too much over lap and responsibilites can be divided up in better ways. Trying to adhere to advisors give the domestic leader way too much power. It also makes trading difficult since trades can involved gold, resources, workers, techs, etc. Strictly going by the advisor screens would place leader under the control of the military advisor since that 's the only advisor screen they show up on.

3 - Inclusiveness and Deputy runner ups
If two people are running for a position and they think the department should go in opposite directions then making one the deputy of the other is asking for trouble.

4 - Size of Provinces based on amount of Land Mass
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We need one person to define provinces in a FAST manner so that everyone knows who is responsible for a given city's build queues.

5 - PI structure and speed
If we had a judiciary that could decide on the legality of a posted game play instruction and actually had the power to invalidate illegal instructions then I bet we could avoid Pis in the first place.

6 - Legalese the Bane of the Demogame
The best way to get rid of Legalese is to get rid of the detailed rules. Stick with a general constitution and play the game. Once we start trying to use detailed rules there's always going to be someone who finds the loopholes. Why do you think lawyers make so much money in the real world?

7 - Accept Instructions after one hour before the turnchat
There has to be a deadline after which no more instructions can be posted. It is not that difficult to get instructions posted in time for a game play session. It really isn't that hard to do folks. Keep the deadline.

8 - Advisor/Spot Votes
No changes to posted game play instructions. No spot vote. That's no spot votes or advisor changes PERIOD. This should be a forum based game. See DG1, PI#6.

9 - More control to Advisors in Chat
No, no, no, a thousand times NO! Advisors who control are not advisors. If they want control during game play sessions tell them to get elected president.
 
okay here's an updated advisor guide I propose

President (plays the game)
Domestic Dept. (in charge of rallying Governors and sliders)
Governors (in charge of Build Queues and citizen allocation)
Mayors (in charge of one city, assisting Governors in their job) Optional​
Infrastructure Dept. (in charge of settling and worker allocation)
Science Dept (in charge of Tech research) Minimal work, but doesn't fit with others well​
Military Dept. (in charge of troop movements, and war tactics)
Foreign Affairs (in charge of Trade, ROP's, Military Alliances)

Those Departments shown as sub-departments of Domestic, could be concidered their own Dept. except for Governors, I feel someone is needed to help rally the Governors twoards national goals. But I feel these are the basic departments necciary without giving one person too much work or power.
 
Good thoughts here, good thoughts. I only have a little to say.

1) Sounds good.
2) I like Falcon's proposal
3) This seems be be a big bone of contention. How about we have the runner-up be the deputy until the winner appoints someone?
4) Nothing to add here
5) Just make it so the dang things get DONE
6) Have to agree with donsig here. If something's too heinous, I think we should have a general "lynch" PI thing that could be used where a specific law is not violated. (I'm gonna be killed for saying that)
7) I don't see a point in this law unless we're going to have a pre-chat preturn, and even then, I think advisors should be able to change their instructions in-chat
8) I liked the how spot votes were used in DG2. Dunno how we could legislate that though
9) See #7
 
I think the DP, should have full control over using workers, but the governors can post suggestions in there instructions
 
donsig said:
I gave up on that concept long before the infamous triple science leader election. Back in DG1 I ran against eyrei for Domestic Leader and ended up as his deputy. I think he's still upset that I didn't queue up an aqueduct in Eyr while he was away... :mischief:

I had actually forgotten about that. :p

I was rather upset at the time, as growing that uncorrupted, coastal city to generate revenue for expansion was one of my major goals. ;)
 
I still don't see the need for spot votes. Simply add to the constitution that two complaints against a leader for not posting instructions in time results in impeachment, and you will clear up half of the need for spot votes.

Plus, spot council votes are much more representative anyway...
 
1 - Backbone ruleset
This can go both ways. If rules are too specific, then we get certain individuals who can't go a day without looking at every little thing and complaining about every violation, no matter how small. On the other hand, when rules are too general then we either get arguments over the grey areas, or someone who takes great liberties even to the point of totally ignoring input from others and common sense. We need a compromise between these two extremes.

2 - Mimic Game Advisors
There are several things to consider here
  • How well is power balanced?
  • How do we handle things which span multiple positions. With the Labor & Finance dept we "solved" the worker question but still who decides what gold to put into trade offers, Trade or Finance?
  • Providing a variety of positions with differing participation requirements, so that people with limited time or who are not yet confident can still participate.
  • The positions should make sense. The advisors in the game are actually set up to balance screen space, not because those items go together. I would rather be able to set the tech to research and tech slider setting on the same page.

3 - Inclusiveness and Deputy runner ups
We need a guaranteed mechanism for a smooth transition of power if someone goes missing. I was at a loss for who to appoint to the MIA deputy position -- the obvious candidates all declined, and basically nobody stepped forward on their own. How about allowing the winner to appoint a deputy, with the runner-up automatically filling that chair if 3 days pass with no appointment.

4 - Size of Provinces based on amount of Land Mass
How about graduated province sizes? Make the ones close to the capitol small, and the further out we go make them bigger. This will balance governors who have to plan a queue several things deep on a few cities per play session with ones who can put 2 things in the queue and take a week off if they want.

5 - PI structure and speed
The limitation on a justice serving as an attorney is what threw this off, along with lack of time limits. Not to mention most of a term was chewed up by JR's on who was responsible for left over cases.

6 - Legalese the Bane of the Demogame
We need a way to collectively slap nitpickers with large fish. [where's the trout smiley? have to use :wallbash: instead] A little common sense would go a long way. Can we have a rule about not obstructing the game, and send people packing if they go too far overboard?

7 - Accept Instructions after one hour before the turnchat
OK, I'm guilty on several occasions of forgetting the timezone and missing the 1 hour window. The point is well taken that the DP could be doing preturn before the chat and could miss instructions. Some things are so obvious that it shouldn't be a big deal.

8 - Advisor/Spot Votes
9 - More control to Advisors in Chat
These ones are so religious that we'll probably never have an answer. Here's a simple example -- CG's instruction to pop the hut in Term 1 TC 1. Everyone at the chat at the time, and most if not all in the forum later, wanted the instruction changed. It was ridiculous that something like that, a trivial decision with drastic long-term consequences, could not be changed without cutting off a TC early on. Why oh why can't we make allowances for this type of simple change, and if you're worried about advisors run amok have a limitation on bigger changes or go PI/CC them if they're really going overboard?
 
On the topic of the budget - in DG1 and 2, domestic handled this in much the same way that the DFL is. advisors post in a budget thread (even a request like, "Save 500g for rushing culture" was fine), and the domestic advisor would include that in their instructions.

Now, I wouldn't mind the DFL being a seperate department to handle that, since one of the complaints in DG1 and 2 was that domestic had too much power. The DFL could handle the budget, and what the workers should do (i.e., what tiles take priority). Then again, that could be a domestic advisor task, since they have the top productive cities in their screen. (press the shield icon).
 
DaveShack said:
6 - Legalese the Bane of the Demogame
We need a way to collectively slap nitpickers with large fish. [where's the trout smiley? have to use :wallbash: instead] A little common sense would go a long way. Can we have a rule about not obstructing the game, and send people packing if they go too far overboard?

Yeah sure, and we'll let YOU decide who has gone overboard. :rolleyes:

Ever heard the saying, "One's man's trash is another man's treasure"? In the same way, what some consider to be legal nit picking others consider to be the defence of basic legal principles.

If you really want less nit picking then lobby for less rules.
 
Top Bottom