What game do we play?

[robboo]

BTS...I dont have Civ3.

/I can think of solution to participation...can we make it like survivor and vote someone out every month? or how about we lose a city we vote off a person. (joking.)

 

[Black_Hole]

Tough choice, I am open for either Civ3 Conquests or Civ4 Beyond the Sword, but for some reason I think a Civ3 demogame would be a bit more fun.

 

[Provolution]

"or veteran interference as Provolution call it" - Be honest there, Provo.

I'll be watching with interest as this develops. Fear not - I'll not be involved in the gameplay or ruleset. I'll be on the sidelines with my cup and chair.

Use the rest of Term 1 to flesh out any needed details. Although Provo hates the mere thought, look at some previous games that did separate the rules out some for some ideas, and go from there.

Sorry, but from my perspective it seems you are more concerned about me as a person, than about getting a Civ4 BTS demogame with a Civic-centric election system. I got far more constructive inputs on the topic from Daveshack, Locce, Joe Harker and Methos, but the Civ3 crowd decided to derail the idea by trying to make us play Civ3 instead.

However, if you are not interested in the Civ4 centric and Civic centric demogame as some of us are, please let us know. It seems you are more prone to trading potshots over past differences, than to start afresh with a new game or to stay on the side and drink tea from your chair, and yes, that reassuring "fear not" was just a first drop of rain from you.

Your activity level suggests that you are not intending to be drinking tea alone, that you want to derail this idea, as you said previously the game would be laid dead for a year or two.

If you insist on helping the idea out, please contribute, if you oppose the idea, present something new or leave us alone. If you want argument for arguments sake, please let us know that too.

 

[Provolution]

Taken about as far out of context as possible. In essence.. you said that if we don't use your "radical new approach using civics and bts" then we can count you out. I replied that we might as well count you out then, because your not going to get much support with your current attitude. I never told you to leave the game and the only comment about Civ3 in the entire post was a remark over a some of the replies earlier in the thread and had nothing to do with you.

It was an attempt to try and make you act reasonable. Obviously that didn't work.

You are not really helping. The only reason why I'm bothering to reply is in some vain hope to keep some type of conversation going. Although if it continues much more like this then we might as well close the poll and start a new one.

Ok, I was a bit curt, and for that I apologize. But so were you. You tried to dismiss the idea in the outset in place of finding ways to make it happen. Joe Harker and Locce had excellent counter-proposals. That is the main difference. You and Ravensfire decide instead to focus on derailing the Civics process for differing reasons (you want a Civ3 demogame and he wants... something else...quite possibly my forum-scalp or something if there is such a concept, but not a Civ4 demogame, in particular not a demogame that I helped bring along).

If you intend to play Civ4 BTS (this forum is a Civ4 forum with a strong BTS following), and consider the Civics-centric system from a constructive perspective, then we can talk. However, I do not respond favorably to Civ3 initiatives (as I am done with Civ3 demogames) or to initiatives that want to combat a civic-centric election system for various reasons.

These two terms (Civ4 BTS and a Civic-centric system) are mandatory for my interest in this demogame, and if those two conditions are not met, I am not really interested. I do not want to be persecuted for this belief, but have a "civic" discussion on the matter for similar minds (Those inspired by a Civ4 demogame and a civics-centric election system, how the Civics are organized into the demogame is still up to debate, and Joe Harker and Locces already convinced me to simplify it with constructive inputs).

 

[Strider]

Ok, I was a bit curt, and for that I apologize. But so were you. You tried to dismiss the idea in the outset in place of finding ways to make it happen. Joe Harker and Locce had excellent counter-proposals. That is the main difference. You and Ravensfire decide instead to focus on derailing the Civics process for differing reasons (you want a Civ3 demogame and he wants... something else...quite possibly my forum-scalp or something if there is such a concept, but not a Civ4 demogame, in particular not a demogame that I helped bring along).

If you intend to play Civ4 BTS (this forum is a Civ4 forum with a strong BTS following), and consider the Civics-centric system from a constructive perspective, then we can talk. However, I do not respond favorably to Civ3 initiatives (as I am done with Civ3 demogames) or to initiatives that want to combat a civic-centric election system for various reasons.

I never said that the only thing I want is a Civ3 demogame. Taken from the other thread:

I could go for a BTS game. I personally don't think it matters if we play Civ3 or Civ4. That's not what the DG is all about.

I prefer a Civ3 DG, but I am fine with pretty much anything.

 

[Provolution]

Ok, now we can talk. It also seems several others are completely done with Civ3, like Methos, that built up the BTS CIV4 Info Page, just to mention one potential player.

The others supporting Civ3, Civgeneral and Chieftess, wants a traditional-style demogame with advisors, supremecourt and fixed terms and all, where I am uncertain about Cycs motivation. And yes, Ravensfire now supports Civ3 for political reasons, I forgot. Remember, he was the one giving you the "friendly" advise to set up this poll, in order to make sure we got enough turbulence to amuse him. He is not intending to help out, he said himself.

 

[ravensfire]

Give the paranoia a rest, will ya, Provo?

Focus on actual proposals, not me.

-- Ravensfire

 

[robboo]

Provo..you may garner more support is you werent so abrasive and rude. Chill out.

 

[Provolution]

All right, I hope the same goes by those that argue at a similar level, then I will refrain from transgressions. However, I would like more inputs on the civic-driven model, and less on posturing. I found Civ3 not to be relevant here, that is why, and the ones arguing against it has stated they dislike the idea, without giving an alternative but tradtitional.