What has happened to the Game?

[classical_hero]

Why hasn't anything happened so far? Will we be any loser to solvin the problems with this game?

 

[RegentMan]

Without a president, we're at a standstill.

Spoiler RegentMan's rant :

I'm sure that we could get participation up if the game simply ended in three turns... Heck, I'd be president if we went for domination.

 

[classical_hero]

Perhaps, it seems that I am one of the few people willing to continue this game and fulfill what we have set out to do right from the beginning.

 

[Strider]

Half of the elected poistions isn't even filled (because of lack of a President). Give it acouple of days.

 

[Black_Hole]

Without a president, we're at a standstill.

Spoiler RegentMan's rant :

I'm sure that we could get participation up if the game simply ended in three turns... Heck, I'd be president if we went for domination.

I agree, it will be hard for the judiciary to find a president as after all:
1. Someone would have nominated themselves if they wanted to be president during nominatnions
2. Who wants to play a game we have already won and are just making it longer

Plus in the poll on what to do with Gordium, the winning option was Abstain...

 

[zyxy]

I agree, it will be hard for the judiciary to find a president as after all:
1. Someone would have nominated themselves if they wanted to be president during nominatnions
2. Who wants to play a game we have already won and are just making it longer

Plus in the poll on what to do with Gordium, the winning option was Abstain...

ad 1. It seems the judiciary somehow has nominees. Don't know how they got them, I guess you'll have to PM the Chief Justice, or maybe get PM-ed....

ad 2. I think there actually were a few people who did. I wanted to. Not anymore though. For me, this game is lost, no matter what happens now. The only fitting way to end it would be to abandon all our cities and disband all our settlers.

The game was won the moment we had the upper hand against the Dutch, somewhere end of term 2 or early term 3. If the only goal is to win, then we could have stopped then. Unless you get a kick out of seeing the "you won" window, of course.
I am getting more and more puzzled as to what the "role-players" really want....

 

[classical_hero]

There is another appointment you need. The culture minister has resigned. CYA.

 

[GenMarshall]

One things that I have noticed recently is how some people are discontent with the forum culture of the Demogame. I beleve we should change that and make an attempt to change for Demogame 7. We should look back on how the former demogamers played the game outside of Civ3. They accepted and considered other ideas from other demogame citizens and worked to a common goal.

I know originaly we have planned for a culture victory, but somewhere during our wars we have gained so much territory that we have treaded into domination territory. I hope to see Demogame 7 to work together towards a common goal.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

The game was won the moment we had the upper hand against the Dutch, somewhere end of term 2 or early term 3. If the only goal is to win, then we could have stopped then. Unless you get a kick out of seeing the "you won" window, of course.
I am getting more and more puzzled as to what the "role-players" really want....

What do they (I, we....) want? You pretty much said it all in the preceding paragraph. The game is won by Term 2 or 3 each time. The only way to possibly offset this is to introduce and play out real world dilemmas within the game.

Exhibit A: Ivory and Furs will help our nation by making one extra citizen happy, yet there is an environmental contingent that believes that the sale of animal parts is wrong. Now we have a discussion that resembles real world debate, instead of a gameplay given that always defaults to "kill the varmints!"

Exhibit B: The founders of our nation decide early on that they want a cultural victory, yet leaders from later generations do not plan properly and put themselves this close to another victory option. All pandemonium ensues when said leaders are called out for their Dubya-esque plan to deprive some citizens of their heritage, the sole reason being to honor some ancient decree by the town elders. What is a "victory option" anyway? Does time not continue to pass once a city grows to allow our nation's expansion beyond some arbitrary limit?

The gripe of the "role-player" is that we at CFC can talk through a game of civ strategy in just about every forum here. The Game of Democracy was meant to add a challenge to the game by allowing all participants to act as part of a mock congress, beholden to the wishes of their "imaginary" constituency. Doing so would (or should) afford us the empathy and respect for these citizens, so that we would (or should) elect not to kill them off for an early Temple (pop-rush) or deprive them of a learning center because the warhawks got too greedy. Give us real world arguments for why the Library in Gordium should be destroyed, not some game dynamic about the Domination limit, and I may have agreed to it.

I was pretty surprised that you became so upset with my role-play regarding Gordium. You seem to be pretty level-headed and also aspire to add elements of role-play/restrictions to the game(Geneva Convention etc). So why would you be more bothered by this instead of by those who brought us so dangerously close to this dilemma in the first place?

 

[Provolution]

DZ

I agree, the gamey numbercrunchers took out the experiential energy from the game. Everything became a statistical equation. There should have been restrictions like one worker per city, and 10 cities per province, stronger competition between governors in localizations. There should have been more political dilemmas not rational gamewise, but rational for policy considerations real life. Yet, I do not consider contemporary human rights conventions as appropriate for BC dilemmas, and really dislike Amnesty International values permeate back to middle ages.

 

[Nobody]

lets just celebrat the end, and not worry about how it died.

 

[classical_hero]

lets just celebrat the end, and not worry about how it died.

That is exactly how the last game ended. It thought that it could happen only once, but it seems to be part of the culture in these Demogames. It seems like we never have a plan that we stick to. These games will always end like this because we cannot work together. We just do not want to work for a common goal. The lack of teamwork will kill this.

 

[RegentMan]

The lack of teamwork will kill this.

And pressing enter for 2+ months won't?

 

[DaveShack]

That is exactly how the last game ended. It thought that it could happen only once, but it seems to be part of the culture in these Demogames. It seems like we never have a plan that we stick to. These games will always end like this because we cannot work together. We just do not want to work for a common goal. The lack of teamwork will kill this.

Hmm, maybe my memory is failing, but I thought in the last game (DG5) we voted somewhere in the middle of the game for Diplomatic, and then reaffirmed that at the beginning of the last term. We then carried on with the predetermined plan. We got pretty good teamwork at the end, or at least I thought we had.

 

[DaveShack]

These games will always end like this because we cannot work together. We just do not want to work for a common goal. The lack of teamwork will kill this.

Here's a paradox -- we had a common goal, but through a relatively minor mistake the last city was captured instead of being razed as it should have been. Then instead of allowing the obvious "fix" to that problem, either stopping culture there or abandoning the city, many of the people who are adament about wanting to win via culture also write op-ed pieces about the deplorable situation that we have to destroy culture to win by culture. You can't have it both ways. Equally puzzling is how our out of game culture, the role play which was the hallmark of earlier DGs, lies dormant until the last week and then comes out strong. Too bad our strong roleplayers remained dormant for so long.

BTW, instead of quitting why not participate in the rules discussion and try to change it?

 

[classical_hero]

BTW, instead of quitting why not participate in the rules discussion and try to change it?

I was the only trying to change the culture he. Obviously, this place is not right for me. :shakehead

 

[RegentMan]

I was the only trying to change the culture he. Obviously, this place is not right for me. :shakehead

Provolution tried that (remember the ISDG?) but failed. Why do you think you can "change the culture" here? What exactly do you want to change? Is it the fact that some people changed their minds from a culture victory to a domination victoy? I'm sorry, but you're never going to be able to stop people from simply changing their minds.

 

[Double Stack]

Don't try to change the culture. Try to make it work with the current culture. Changing it is like forgien powers trying to invade us.

 

[Provolution]

As Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said about the Afghan Tribesmen Alliance, than organizing them was like herding cats. This is way way more challenging, so I leave it to the moderators, Daveshack, Ravensfire, Strider and Donovan Zoi, these represent most of what happens in here, for good and bad.