Why is that result likely DaveShack? Because you or Thunderfall have decided already?
No, far from it. It seems to me you have a bad habit of assuming ulterior motives, where there are none. I
think it's likely because I don't expect enough warm bodies to get two games off the ground.
Why is it we can't run two games, each open to everyone, yet each with it's own focus and consequently its own ruleset?
I think we need a lot more people to give their input. Seven people per side aren't enough to make a game. IMO the "half" which does have enough people (barely) must entice the remaining folks to participate, or it won't have enough people either.
LOOK at the poll results DaveShack.
There are two kinds of questions. This poll asks "what kind of game do you prefer". The missing data, IMO, is "what kind of game will you run away from". I enjoy demogames no matter the format.
Edit: If you look at the history, you will see I have never refused to participate because of events. RL yes, but even when I completely disagreed with the 5BC game format, I still participated.
If you do you will see that there is a split between the roleplayers and civ players.
We know that, even without a poll.
We've been at this for four or five years now and can't put together a game that satisfies both.
Several of the games over that time have satisfied both. Maybe not completely satisfied, but they have been palatable. It usually works when neither side gives up.
With only one game and one ruleset and the mentality to be all inclusive we get games with conflict that soon turn boring for everyone.
Not sure I really agree with saying it is conflict (by itself) that makes the game turn boring. I see games running along peacefully and reasonably balanced, and then an issue becomes a catalyst for a swing too far to one side. The failures happen because the force driving the game in that direction don't recognize they're killing it. The sad thing about swing issues is that the pattern seems to be an action which is motivated by that person's desire to give the people a say, followed by backlash against that person by others who claim to want to give the people a say.
Let's see if we can set up tandem games before we try to make another failed ruleset.
I'm interested in your opinion of how many active players per game it takes to make that idea work?
). Even the threat of a Presidential veto hanging over certain plans sounds like a lot of fun. Its inefficient, its partially unfair, and its the beauty of politics at work. 
