where are our citizens?

[eyrei]

I think that the design of the game is not flawed, but that circumstances have made it very difficult to implement. We have a lot of territory and a lot of cities. Our territory is so large that it will not fit in one screenshot anymore. This is certainly to our benefit as a nation, but the larger a nation gets , the harder it is to govern. One of the reasons so many things are decided during the turn chat, is because they were not addressed in the forum or were not obvious in the forum. The turn instructions threads should help immensely here, and may clear up other problems as well.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by eyrei
I think that the design of the game is not flawed, but that circumstances have made it very difficult to implement. We have a lot of territory and a lot of cities. Our territory is so large that it will not fit in one screenshot anymore. This is certainly to our benefit as a nation, but the larger a nation gets , the harder it is to govern. One of the reasons so many things are decided during the turn chat, is because they were not addressed in the forum or were not obvious in the forum. The turn instructions threads should help immensely here, and may clear up other problems as well.

I think this fact is the fundamental flaw with the game

It's not anyone's willfull mishandling of the situation, it is the reality of the game. If we are successful, then the nation will be big quite quickly.

I think we have to take power away from the turn chats and move it to the forums again. I know that makes the game go slow, but this game is pretty much at the assured victory stage already, and it is only a month and half old.

So we will run into these very same problems in the near future with CIII - Demo2 and so on.

Obviously other disagree, as noted in this thread, but I decided to answer the question posed, and my answer is that since I cannot attend a turn chat in the middle of my workday, I cannot keep up with the game because the major decisions are being made in chat, the only description of what is going on happens during chat, and there is no useful after the event history and description of our situation, I cannot stay involved with what is going on in Phoenetia, let alone remain engaged.

It has evolved into a game where basically those who can make it, meet to chat and play collaborative game.

That's not a bad thing by the way, probably very rewarding for those who's time zones meet the prerequisets. But that collaborative game is not in my opinion what this game set out to be.

Just my .02 US$

Bill

 

[chiefpaco]

Bill, I do not understand your points. I would like to go a bit deeper in your points, to see why I don't understand.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX ...I cannot keep up with the game because the major decisions are being made in chat, the only description of what is going on happens during chat, and there is no useful after the event history and description of our situation, I cannot stay involved with what is going on in Phoenetia, let alone remain engaged.

Perhaps you would like to give an example of a major decision that was made during the chat that was not discussed on the forum beforehand or covered by departmental policy. Maybe this happened before the turn instruction threads were introduced? I think the turn is implemented as closely to these as possible. The policies and decisions are open for debate between turns. Did we once go on in a game where we should have stopped? Did we once go against our plans where emergency did not call for it? I don't see how it would be any different if it were just the President playing the game.

I agree with you the forum could be better organized in the summation of our events.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX It has evolved into a game where basically those who can make it, meet to chat and play collaborative game.

Again, I don't see the reasoning here. I think turn chats exist so that the President may share the game with anyone interested in seeing the game as it progresses. If we did away with the turn chats, the game isn't collaborative anymore, and is even more exclusive, because then President then owns the game. If you're implying that turn chats are an excuse for officials to not design policies & procedures between turns, then that would be a point, yet I do not see a specific case of it happening.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX That's not a bad thing by the way, probably very rewarding for those who's time zones meet the prerequisets. But that collaborative game is not in my opinion what this game set out to be.

Perhaps you'd like to say what you envision our game to be? I'm not disagreeing with you, but saying why I don't see it the same way & why I don't understand your reasoning. If you have some evidence to support some of your statements, I will certainly back you.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Perhaps you would like to give an example of a major decision that was made during the chat that was not discussed on the forum beforehand or covered by departmental policy. Maybe this happened before the turn instruction threads were introduced? I think the turn is implemented as closely to these as possible.

I believe there was much discussion in the first term regarding city builds, military deployments, and plans that were overridden during the turn chat. Perhaps the new turn instructions have addressed that, but I can't tell because I can't find a summary of what is happening in the game

Again, I don't see the reasoning here. I think turn chats exist so that the President may share the game with anyone interested in seeing the game as it progresses. If we did away with the turn chats, the game isn't collaborative anymore, and is even more exclusive, because then President then owns the game. If you're implying that turn chats are an excuse for officials to not design policies & procedures between turns, then that would be a point, yet I do not see a specific case of it happening.

There are actually numerous examples of it from term 1, including an instance where those in attendance at chat were encouraged to go vote immediately in a new poll set up on a very short notice basis. But a recent example of progress is illustrative. It involved Shaitan (who has done remarkable work in this government), who was proposing an agreement with China, and that agreement was soundly defeated opposed in the thread...you chiefpaco being one of the stronger voices, yet he casually mentioned in the thread that oh, if we aren't doing a ROP, I'll give them gpt, which launched another discussion.

In the past, that casual mention would have simply occured in chat, and if the opposition to Eyrei, GF, and Shaitan cannot attend, then the deal goes through. I am very glad Shaitan brought that up, even if it was inadvertant, because it does show progress, and perhaps my comments are too term one focused.

My whole point in that direction is that turn chat directly and indirectly encourages the decision making to occur at chat, and the leader can always fall back on the usual reasons for doing so.

Perhaps there is no way to address the issue. But if the President executes the plans in private and reports back on the results and status, that actually opens the game more in my eyes compared to the current method. How does the CIVII game do it I wonder?

Perhaps you'd like to say what you envision our game to be? I'm not disagreeing with you, but saying why I don't see it the same way & why I don't understand your reasoning. If you have some evidence to support some of your statements, I will certainly back you.

I envisioned the game to be more thread based and perhaps a bit slower because of that. I observed a lot of what was happening in the CIV2 game and thought it would be fun to do here. But without a understanding of what is happening in our nation, it is difficult to remain involved.

Hope that helps
Bill

 

[disorganizer]

to get it right on the point:
we need a turn-chat summary...?

well, gf did it in the first term in the presidential thread. maybe that idea should really be implemented. a turn-thread where the major actions are summarized in words rather than a chat-log.
(i think this is also a proposal in the forum-redesign thread in the main civ3-demo-forum).

right?

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


I envisioned the game to be more thread based and perhaps a bit slower because of that. I observed a lot of what was happening in the CIV2 game and thought it would be fun to do here. But without a understanding of what is happening in our nation, it is difficult to remain involved.

Hope that helps
Bill

Good point. I think the game is a bit TOO forum based.

1. There's just too many forums to look at (it's hard to guess where the important discussions are currently taking place)

2. The turn chats take place a bit quick now. With all of these forums (and there's other stuff on this board - SGs, tourny, GOTM), that it's hard to absorb everything and reply, while doing a half dozen other things. I think the turn chats should be atleast 3-4 days, if not only on the weekends. It might get better in the summer (it looks like most players are high school/college age).

 

[disorganizer]

i just posted in the president's forum to let our president get this ideas noticed. i made a proposal there to solve this issue compiled from other threads, and i hope i did it right...
Proposal Post in President's Thread

 

[Mr Spice]

I was severly tempted to let this issue drop, but have decided to give it another try. The reason why you are loosing players is that quite many people find this game boring, or at least I think we can safely asume that is the reason. Why is it boring? Well, from now on I can only speak for myself, but I believe my opinions are shared by a significant number of those who decided to leave. Judging by this thread they are even shared by some people who have stayed.

Why did I join in the first place? Because I wanted a chance to play a game of Civ 3 together with other people. The Civ 2 demo game was fun and I thoght it would be nice to move on to Civ 3, a game that I appreicate even more. I was expecting everyone to participate in dicsussions and decisions equally. I expected a chance to voice my opinion at the same conditions as everyone else. Just to make things clear, I did not expect all decisions to be in agreement with mine, that is neither possible nor desireable.

What did I find? I found a game where some people´s opinions mattered more than others. Some decisions were taken solely by the ministers instead of by all citizens in equal discussions. Lots of decisions were taken on the turn chats, solely by the people who happened to live in proper time zones. I also found that some discussions were meant exlusively for ministers. Sure, they did tolerate a few incursions from ordinary citizens, but ideally the government threads were supposed to be "clean from noice", ie citizen comments. The "noice" was then supposed to take place in different threads, that the ministers promised to read closely. How noble.

As a citizen I was expected to discuss things with other citizens, while the important discussions took place elsewhere. The citizen groups served as such threads, but I once saw someone being told to bugger of because he was no member of that group. (I don´t remember what group, who it was or who told him to beat it unless he was a member. It is also not important.) I was also supposed to vote in polls, as this would somehow ensure my influence of the game. Doing so was even stated as my "duty". Voting in polls is not my idea of fun, and neither is watching others play. I want to participate in discussions, speak my own mind, have the same chance to influence decisions as everyone else. I am not looking for a chance to simulate the political system of some western democracy, I am looking for an opportunity to play a game together with other people. I want to reach decisions together with everyone else by the use of discussions, not stand by and watch other people make decisions for me. (Disclaimer: I realize though that sometimes polls are needed to settle matters when there is huge disagreement.)

I have not been here for a very long time, but just read a small number of active threads here. It seems as if citizens have not been allowed to speak during the chats, because the "noice" they create will make it harder to play the game. Apparantly you have decided to change that, because now citizens are allowed to "speak when asked to" by the officials. As far as I understand citizens are still not allowed to speak when they want to themselves. I am the first one to admit that lots of people in a chat makes it very confusing. This is another reason why you would be wise to drop the chats. They obviosly are not suited for equal discussions.

There is a fundamental conflict between the turn chats and forum decisions. Chats are bound to be restricted to a small group of people, not only because of the time-zone problem but because they guickly get out of hand with too many participants. I you keep the chats you will by necessity make it impossible for everyone to make decisions by open discussions, in which every one get the opportunity to speak their mind. I can safely say not many people would settle for listening and voting. If listening and voting are your options, you will defenitely loose interest and find something better to do, just as so many people already have. It is no coincidence that most people who left didn´t have official positions.

The turn chats have to be dropped. Reforms such as allowing people to speak when called for will make no difference. They have to be dropped completely. Doing so is the only way to ensure all participants in this game access to all discussions and decisions. This in turn is the only way to make the game interesting even for non-officials.

Please note that I don´t accuse anyone of being power-hungry or manipulating. I am sure all ministers perform their work with the best intentions and to the best of their ability.

Edit: A number of mispellings

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Mr Spice

What did I find? I found a game where some people´s opinions mattered more than others. Some decisions were taken solely by the ministers instead of by all citizens in equal discussions. Lots of decisions were taken on the turn chats, solely by the people who happened to live in proper time zones. I also found that some discussions were meant exlusively for ministers. Sure, they did tolerate a few incursions from ordinary citizens, but ideally the government threads were supposed to be "clean from noice", ie citizen comments. The "noice" was then supposed to take place in different threads, that the ministers promised to read closely. How noble.

Just to make it clear. At the outset, The Duck of Flanders explained that he wanted the ministers to make most of the decisions, to speed the game up, and make it less likely to collapse. None of us having played the Civ2 game, we had nothing else to go on, so we followed these instructions. No offense, Duck, I do not think it was a bad idea for the reasons you gave. We might have tried it the other way first, I guess, but it was very successful in that the game got off to a very strong start at a very good pace.

As a citizen I was expected to discuss things with other citizens, while the important discussions took place elsewhere.

Almost all discussion has taken place in the citizens sub forum for the last couple weeks. The departmental threads mainly contain information and proposals by the leaders, to be discussed in other threads so that these sticky threads do not become 400 pages long.

I have not been here for a very long time, but just read a small number of active threads here. It seems as if citizens have not been allowed to speak during the chats, because the "noice" they create will make it harder to play the game. Apparantly you have decided to change that, because now citizens are allowed to "speak when asked to" by the officials. As far as I understand citizens are still not allowed to speak when they want to themselves. I am the first one to admit that lots of people in a chat makes it very confusing. This is another reason why you would be wise to drop the chats. They obviosly are not suited for equal discussions.

There is a fundamental conflict between the turn chats and forum decisions. Chats are bound to be restricted to a small group of people, not only because of the time-zone problem but because they guickly get out of hand with too many participants. I you keep the chats you will by necessity make it impossible for everyone to make decisions by open discussions, in which every one get the opportunity to speak their mind. I can safely say not many people would settle for listening and voting. If listening and voting are your options, you will defenitely loose interest and find something better to do, just as so many people already have. It is no coincidence that most people who left didn´t have official positions.

The turn chats have to be dropped. Reforms such as allowing people to speak when called for will make no difference. They have to be dropped completely. Doing so is the only way to ensure all participants in this game access to all discussions and decisions. This in turn is the only way to make the game interesting even for non-officials.

I agree that it would be wise to drop the chats. We would have to make sure that all instructions are made clear, and the president would need to post a detailed summary afterwards. (Note: This has nothing to do with my not being able to attend the last few chats. That situation is supposedly being corrected as I am at work today.)


Please note that I don´t accuse anyone of being power-hungry or manipulating. I am sure all ministers perform their work with the best intentions and to the best of their ability.

We have tried. I for one have also wished for a greater involvement in discussion by citizens.

 

[Shaitan]

A common thought here is to extend the time between turns to give more chances for discussion, analyses, etc. I'm definitely on this boat. It's very difficult to analyze the save game and post suggestions for the next turn in time to get responses and refine the plan. This last chat being a day late helped greatly for me.

We're going to a fixed schedule for turn chats. With our nominal 2 day time frame that would be 3 games per week. If we went with 2 games per week (Saturday/Tuesday for example) we would have 3 or 4 days to analyze, discuss and refine. What do you folks think of this idea?

I want to clarify something that Bill said.

It involved Shaitan (who has done remarkable work in this government), who was proposing an agreement with China, and that agreement was soundly defeated opposed in the thread...you chiefpaco being one of the stronger voices, yet he casually mentioned in the thread that oh, if we aren't doing a ROP, I'll give them gpt, which launched another discussion.

In the past, that casual mention would have simply occured in chat, and if the opposition to Eyrei, GF, and Shaitan cannot attend, then the deal goes through. I am very glad Shaitan brought that up, even if it was inadvertant, because it does show progress, and perhaps my comments are too term one focused.

The ROP had 2 dissenters out of 8 respondents so I kept that in the turn instructions. When the dissention came up I updated the plan with a contingency to do a small tribute instead of the ROP if more dissenters showed that the ROP was not popular with the majority. This was an official update to the plan and labeled as such, not an inadverdant mention of it. This was done specifically to get this information to the readers and get feedback on it.

The reason I'm clarifying this is because I was really hoping that the way the Foreign Affairs office and thread is being run would be called out as an example of organization and citizen inclusion.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Mr Spice
As a citizen I was expected to discuss things with other citizens, while the important discussions took place elsewhere. The citizen groups served as such threads, but I once saw someone being told to bugger of because he was no member of that group. (I don´t remember what group, who it was or who told him to beat it unless he was a member. It is also not important.)

The turn chats have to be dropped. Reforms such as allowing people to speak when called for will make no difference. They have to be dropped completely. Doing so is the only way to ensure all participants in this game access to all discussions and decisions. This in turn is the only way to make the game interesting even for non-officials.

Please note that I don´t accuse anyone of being power-hungry or manipulating. I am sure all ministers perform their work with the best intentions and to the best of their ability.

I was the one who who told someone to 'bugger off' in so many words in the 'Save our Citizens' thread. I started that thread and asked those opposed to rushing under despotism to post there. In hind sight I can see that what I really wanted from that thread was a petition I could present to the government showing how many people were against that issue. A petition thread isn't such a bad idea now that I think of it but such a thread would also have to be 'clean' to be useful, right? This all leads to the idea of specialized threads (some with special rules), which we've been floundering towards. The reason for these special threads is to enhance communication.

I'm beginning to see communication (or the lack thereof) as the reason most decisions are made in the turn chat. If this is so then doing away with turns chats will not solve the problem. That will just end up with the person running the game playing the game. We need a mechanism for making decisions and then communicating those decisions to whoever procces the turns.

Sounds like we need a government. It doesn't matter if we all get together in the forums, the turn chat or you all come over to my house to play the game. Either way we need some organization and order or else we'll never be able to make a collective decision on a game issue. And the more people trying to be in on that decision the more complex the organization and order must become if we seek to let everyone in on the decision making process equally.

Mr. Spice also said the game is boring since there is not much to do. Well, what do you want to do Mr. Spice? Tell us. I sympathize with you. We have some young people in this game and I envy them because they're having fun making maps and web sites for their provinces. I feel like I'm working not having fun.

I've stuck with it this far because I, too, like the idea behind the demo game. I've put considerable energy into how our 'government' should be organized in the hopes that a second demo game will be enjoyable since many of the kinks would be worked out.

As for turn chats, they could be done away with. The last three were marathon events of 4 to 5 hours each. Most of this time was taken up doing pre-trun stuff. 'Pre-turn stuff' consists of things like trades and build queues. etc that had supposedly been decided upon in the forums. It should be a very mechanincal process of simply following forum instructions. It has been a long and frustrating search for those instructions and is only now becoming bearable because of the turn chat instructions thread. Once the pre-turn is done the actual processing of turns goes quickly.
Perhaps we need a two step process for playing the turns. Issues are discussed in the forums, choices made and instruction thread written. Someone then downloads the sav and processes the instructions noted any that can't be followed and why. That person then saves the games without processing a turn, uploads it and posts a report in forum. The only 'new' debates would center around instructions that couldn't be implemented. Once that is resolved and everyone is happy that the President has his instructions for what may lie ahead then he or she can go ahead and play ten turns, save, post, summarize and begin the cycle again.

I can see now that the main reason for wanting the turn chats done away with is to remove the time constraints. With no turn chats we don't need a turn chat time, turn chat notice, etc. For this very reason we should find a way to play without turn chats.

Good job Mr. Spice!

 

[eyrei]

Donsig and I agree on something! We should beware cataclysmic events! Seriously, I definately like your proposal. I think we could even slow the game down to where we only play turns on the weekend. On Wednesday, we could implement the 'turn 0' instructions, and then debate what to do about those that couldn't be carried out. On Saturday, all additional instructions are posted, and the president plays the game on Sunday, at whatever time is best for him/her.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig
Perhaps we need a two step process for playing the turns. Issues are discussed in the forums, choices made and instruction thread written. Someone then downloads the sav and processes the instructions noted any that can't be followed and why. That person then saves the games without processing a turn, uploads it and posts a report in forum. The only 'new' debates would center around instructions that couldn't be implemented. Once that is resolved and everyone is happy that the President has his instructions for what may lie ahead then he or she can go ahead and play ten turns, save, post, summarize and begin the cycle again.

I've been thinking of something along these lines myself but keep hitting obstacles. Let me share the working proposal and what I need help fixing.

Place a 2-3 hour before the chat deadline on turn 0 orders.
The Pres (or Designated Player) does all of the build queues, deals, etc that are possible and writes up a quick summary of anything that went wierd (pretty much like what Donsig said above) and what monies were spent.
At chat time the DP puts the wierdness log out to the chat room (so it's part of the chat log) and has everything ready to go for clicking the next turn button.

The biggest problem I see is figuring the DP. We'd need a deadline for playing turn 0 just like we have for starting the game in the chat turn so the Chain of Command could be invoked to get someone playing if the Pres is delayed or absent.

Next topic
I like the press secretary idea as well. Having one person in the chat room writing up a synopsis (like the turn logs in the SG games) while the game is going on sounds like an excellent solution. The synopsis wouldn't need to be verbose. A brief description of activities taken and deals struck would be fine.

 

[Shaitan]

All three of us like the same idea? If Cyc likes this too then I'm going to hide under my desk for the rest of the day.

 

[Mr Spice]

Originally posted by donsig

I was the one who who told someone to 'bugger off' in so many words in the 'Save our Citizens' thread.

As honest as that confession is, it is not the event I was refering to. I remember seeing that thread of yours and did consider it as the petition you meant it to be.

Mr. Spice also said the game is boring since there is not much to do. Well, what do you want to do Mr. Spice? Tell us.

Sure. I´d like to discuss actions and events with the rest of you, without feeling superflous because of the turn chats. (Didn´t I mention that in my last post?) I am not at all acing for some position, since my governor job in the Civ 2 demo game takes all my time and some more. I would sure appreciate some good turn summaries. If you drop the chats, writing summaries should no longer prove a problem. (The president could then play the game and write summaries at times of his own choice, it doesn´t have to be 5 am in the morning.)

About the government stuff, I´d like to make some suggestions here as well if you don´t mind. We have managed to get a very smooth system in the Civ 2 game, and I feel it would be mean of me not to share it with you. The basics are similar to yours and this is what we do:

1. President plays some turns, writes a summary and provides a saved game. (You should see Kev´s summaries, they are really a piece of art. Let me provide you with a link to the latest one. )

2. The president posts information on when he expects to play the next few turns. This is often two or three days later, sometimes even more depending on his schedule. We have no rules on how often sessions are needed, but end up with two or three each week. There has to be some time between the sessions for proper discussions, so less than two days is out of the question.

3. Ministers and governors initiate discussions about their area of expertice. The science advisor suggests a plan for the next few technologies to choose, the military advisor makes some suggestions about how to procede on different fronts, governors suggest build ques etc. You know the drill. Discussions follow and are ideally concentrated to one thread for each issue and one for each province. If there is huge disagreement we have a poll, but mostly that is not needed.

4. Since the president participates in all discussions, he has good knowledge on what is agreed upon. (We don´t seem to need anything like that turn instruction thread you speak of, but you still have more participants than we so it might be a good idea here.)

5. The president plays the next turns and tries to carry through what was agreed upon in the forum. When new things happen he has the mandate to deal with those issues as he sees fit. Should it happen something very important, he stops the game and returns to the forum. He has a broad mandate to postpone or even change build ques if the situation demands it. Where to draw the line is ultimately up to his judgement, but should the rest of us notice that he crosses the line of what we think is acceptable then he will be replaced extremely quickly. Of course there is a delicate balance here, but so far it has proven to be no problem.

This works extremely well for us, even though we have 42 cities and are at war on two or three different fronts at the same time. There is almost no confusion about what is happening and what we are doing. All participants have equal say in all matters except of course for the president. This can not be avoided, since it is impossible to forsee all events and plan everything in complete detail. But giving a broad mandate for the president to act upon has still proven to be much better than turn chats.

We do have less players than you do (about 10 active), because of the massive exodus that almost killed us around the time when the Civ 3 game was started. Unfortunately it seems as if those who left are gone forever, no matter what improvements are done thereafter. (This is another reason for you to act now, before you loose more players, btw.) Anyway, this means that all that suits us does not necessary have work here. And I am not suggesting you should do everything just like us, consider what I have written as mere suggestions. Although they are "battle-proven".

 

[eyrei]

Another benefit of removing the turn chat is that it would almost always be the president playing the game, as the hours will be entirely up to him/her. We have had a different person play the game the last two weeks, and while I think they have done a good job, they were not necessarily elected to play the game. We should also play fewer turns each time, in my opinion, as this would reduce the chances of unforseen events occuring.

Mr. Spice, I think one of the reasons you have an easier time getting general consensus is that civ2 is a simpler game, where the best strategies to deal with any given situation have been tested over and over. Civ3 strategies are not as well established, and it is more complicated in many ways.

 

[Mr Spice]

Your are probably right about the conscensus regarding Civ 2 strategies and that there will most surely be more disagreement here. Still, I believe you could use (and are in fact already using) most of the procedure used by us if you decide so. Maybe you need more polls to settle disagreements though. Well, getting rid of the turn chat is the most important change you can make. Once you do that you will most surely work the rest out for the best, whatever path you choose to take.

 

[chiefpaco]

I am reading this and not believing a lot of it. Again, I do not know where the accusation that many decisions have been made at the turn chats. Perhaps I am nieve. Perhaps I did not pay close enough attention to last term. I do not belive it is happening now. I don't mean to disupte that maybe it happened before, because enough people have claimed it to be so. However, I do not believe it has happened recently, perhaps as a result of the spreading concern by our citizens and cabinet members (who are well represented in this thread).

If the new voice rules include "only when asked", I believe that should be changed. I don't think that was the intention of the motion, perhaps a remnant of a rough draft, because I do not support that.

However, I do not see the chat detracting from the experience of the game, only enriching. I have now attended the last few chats, even played the last turn. Let me give you an idea of what goes on, because it seems very few people come out. In fact, very few cabinet members have been able to make it lately (shown by the fact that I was next in the CoC when the Pres & Trade Advisor could not play), so I can not see how they are to blame for making decisions in chat when they are not there. 0 non-cabinet members participated in last night's chat, despite the fact they were encouraged to attend. The game was basically me, a deputy, & 2 cabinet members coming in later. See the chat log for the evidence.

Preturn. 1 hour. Figuring out who is playing. People coming in & dropping out. Some people disappearing or "away from keyboard". This has been a bit messy lately, perhaps because of the business of our President outside the game has forced others into playing, & a lack of organization & familiarity of our part being the player of the game over all.

Turn 0. 2 hours. Going over the turn instructions thread. Making triple sure everything is followed as best as possible.

Turns 1-10. 2 hours. Verifying the build queues were entered right. Shuffling troops & workers around. Hit space bar 10 times.

We had small discussions last night on which no policy existed. For example, should we sell tech to other civs who could pay for it? We did not, because we would not dare face accusations that we did actions during chat. But, our window of oppportunity for these deals would not come up between turns for our citizens to discuss. What to do? Stop the game for a tech deal?

Another example, we have towns outside of anyone's province. What to build there? What do we do? Stop the game & have a vote? No, we chug on.

Which town should the workers improve next?, etc, etc...

My point is that the decisions in the game arise when we are unprepared for events however insignificant. Collectively, we can not prepare for all scenarios. Who makes these decisions in our game now? Well, now it is made by the people who attend the chat. A small minority of the citizens who participate in the game. Who made these decisions before? Just the President. Sounds like to me, the previous system was before more of a Dictatorship than this Democracy.

If the Chinese had declared war, we would have definitely stopped. If they had threatened us, we would have gone over the Foreign & Military policies, & used them to justify our actions. If a worker finishes irrigating by NY, the player just moves it to the next town. My point is, I have not seen major violations recently, but only benefits of having more people there to come up with the best decisions on minor details. We built a settler & did not know where to put it, so we walked it to Philadelphia to be settled by the citizens before the next turn.

I like the turn chats. They enhance the game experience for me. I have a bit of a say on each point that is not covered by policy or procedure, where I would not get that chance before. If you don't like to turn out & sit through the 5 hours, that may be personal preference. For those that gave up, I encourage you to come back, because I do not believe major decisions are made there any more. I think all the advisors have learned not to make the chat room a platform for their proposals. Moreso, if it does happen in the future, I will stand with you in accusing the guilty parties. Getting rid of the chats will get 5 hours of my life back to me every other night or so, so if they were abolished, I guess it would not be all that bad...

Changing gears, I will stand behind the motion that the preturn be played beforehand, with the wierdness log attached. I also think, because of our bigger empire & more decisions, 3 days between turns should now be standard. I am also for the new turn organizational threads.

 

[Cyc]

Bravo chiefpaco. I was not going to reply, but that was a very moving post you wrote. I agree with you all the way.

Mr. Spice, your points are strong and accurate, but there is nothing like the experience of a well played turn chat. You have a very good game going in the Civ2 Forum. It is very well done. It is only played by 10? people and is only battle proven the same length of time as this glorious game. This game has many more participants (at this point I would like to thank Red Rain for attending last night's chat), so different approaches have to be examined. Weekend turns with 0 turn days is one that should be examined before we cut off our hand because we misspelled a word.

Ending chats would seriously hurt our culture. Rave on chiefpaco. I admire your enthusiasm.

 

[Shaitan]

I'm with Cyc and chiefpaco. I don't get to most chats (in fact it's about 1 per term) but I enjoy struggling through the logs. They show a lot of interaction between citizens and really help define the likes and dislikes of the participants. I've come to know and trust a lot of Phoenatics by learning about them as a voyeur.