Which ruleset do we focus on?

That will be up to them in their faction proposal

 

Not all traditionalists like the judiciary, and even for those who do it's not always the central issue.

I'm trying myself to not make such generalizations any more. If there were such a generalization to be made, it would be closer to say that the central issue seems to be having rules that people must follow.

 

I give you a standing ovation for that .

Lately I had been turned off by the generalizations about the group that I am in, stating that I would "Keep on repeating the glory of the traditional rules", "Fight for the judiciary", "Traditionalists get their way", and other forms of negativity and generalizations. I have been more and more reluctant to voice my opinions and ideas without fear of negative thoughts and generalizations that I mainly lurk for the most part. Even now I am having second thoughts on signing for the next demogame with the continued negativity.

I may be for the judiary, but it's not a centralized issue and I envision a smaller judicary designed to make sure the game is played fairly with little bureaucracy (Anything serious requires a moderator intervention)

 

I think the generalizations also go the other way. "We tried it before", "It does not work", "It will be interesting to see", so the discouragement trolling goes both ways, but I got notified for it. But the fact is that Faction based (and civic based for that matter) meet habitual discouragement.

 

Just thought it was mildly humorous how you can flip those two quotes around and it makes perfect sense. In other words.. I agree with provolutions comment above. There are more generalizations from the other side than ours. The only difference is that Provolution doesn't hide them as well.

I have, so far, limited myself to keeping the game moving and defending my faction-based proposal, but I've found it increasingly tiring just defending. I have yet to see any remarkable reasons as to why we shouldn't use the faction based proposal other than that we shouldn't. It has been, so far, a rather useless debate. I hope that my continued defense, fairly sound reasoning, and solid points/purposes is the reason why the newer players seem to be supporting the faction based proposal.

I've also found the lack of initiative from anyone other than myself, Provo, or croxis rather frustrating. I have found myself increasingly lacking in time (and awareness for that matter) and had hoped several powerful steps forward will get some movement going. Right now all we need to do is finish this poll up, finalize the rules, and then chose our settings. We could have a game running by next weekend.

I was delighted when dutchfire pinpointed the cause that had alluded me; we lacked initiative. I had hoped that the general agreement with that reasoning would counter it. That, however, did not hold true. If we are really going to get this game going again then we are going to need more than just croxis and I asking what you guys want. That will doom the game automatically regardless of ruleset.

 

Then base what we do off this poll, which seems to be Faction Based. And yes, that is mostly why

You were smart in saying that you needed suggestions from other people to tweak the Factions ruleset

 

The game hasn't even started yet, and bashing accusations are being passed around the table. Why? I have no idea. This game is still in pre-natal stages and it seems to me that most would rather argue an arbitrary point rather than focus and moving the game foward. Yes, we do need a basis for rules. Yet, having a fully formed ruleset, before ANYONE seems interested, defeats the point. I base this off the 10-12 votes in this topic.

When I saw that this game was starting up again, I believe my reaction fell between "whoopie" and "sweet". Now, three weeks later, my reaction has fallen between "yawn" and "ZzZzZzZ." All these arguements and posturing are wearing down my will to sit through all of this. I don't know if people agree with me, but I want to see the game ACTUALLY move from conceptual ideas to a concrete system. Yet, it seems we have neither the numbers or support to do so.

Strider, not to sound like an arse, but you two aren't the only people wanting this game to start. Nor are you the only people who actively formulating possible ways to start the game. We need to kill this partisan attitude before it drives possible demo gamers away. We need to advertise and find more players. We need a wholesale agreement on the basics of the game. Though I know this is all wishful thinking, lost in the fantasies of my imagination, I hope people will see past the inherent political poppycock of these early stages, and join this game. If not to see more activity in these forums, then to actually get this ball rolling.

 

Predicting attack post by Provo, blaming all ills on "Traditionalists" ...

Shattered - it's there, it will always be there. Certain people will not be able to post in this game with Provo and his cabal attacking. It makes for a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but it's there.

BTW - if you want to have fun, keep track of how many times Provo says he'll stop!

-- Ravensfire

 

Once again I find myself merely defending. It is, once again, frustrating trying to get people to do something and only receive negativity in regards to it. I wanted to get the game going with absolutely no ruleset a month ago. That was shot down. I have written a main page announcement, I've actively campaigned in the chatroom, I've bugged every moderator for several things. I AM TRYING

I have neither the will nor interest in arguing with you. Even more so when you can argue against yourself.

 

I'd be willing to take the initiative into the Demogame if there weren't any attack posts against the "traditionalists". Which, IMO and not to sound like a bum, makes for an unpleasant experience.

If one is willing to convince that their idea (in this case for example the Fraction based rule set) is a good idea. It's better to give a convincing argument that would make the person more inclined to agree and side with that idea. Attacking the individual (Ad hominem in this case) is NOT a good way to gain support to an idea and will turn people off. It's best to avoid any ad hominems if you wish to convince the traditionalists that eather the Fraction based or Civic Based ruleset is better than the Traditional ruleset.

 

Strider:

I do appreicate the work you are doing to get the game up and running, also you have got to remember that some of us have less time than you, and some of us (like me!) can't come up with any major good ideas. When i pose a question about the faction system (or any other system) i am not saying i don't like it, i am just merely trying to get over any possible hurdles that might come up with the adpotion of a ruleset.

also there are three rulesets out there, and there isn't really any room for any other rulesets without taking bits from rulesets already proposed so the room for new idea's is limited. Plus with your faction system, we only have to agree on the overall game rules, not laws as they will be made when we spilt into factions.

 

Believe us, we have tried. I am sorry for the last week attacks, and regret that. However, we have written numerous pages on our proposals, to no avail. If you traditionalists would like to propose a compromise, please do so, and we will listen to it. But you can safely assume we are not interested in the main traditional outline, and yes, since this is Civ4 BTS, we would like a new ruleset actually capturing the spirit of the new game, which is in many ways very different from Civ3 C. Yes, many of the Traditionalists have asked for a Civ3 C game, which makes me wonder if they are serious about a Civ4 BTS demogame at all. I know a stall tactic when I see one.

 

Joe, your questions about the ruleset are definitely appreciated and were in no means seen as a flat out negative. Questions mean a lack of clarity on the writers' part. It also helps us strengthen the proposal.

CivGeneral, there are three pages on the faction based ruleset in the official thread alone. In there, and elsewhere I have stated the strengths of the ruleset over the other two. I will do so again here.

1. It is the most simple. In the current version the faction based ruleset has about a quarter of the words as the last demo game constitution. It is also a bit less complicated than the civics based ruleset (which the faction one kinda grew from).

2. Better role play. Based on the why do you demogame poll, a lot of people voted politics and role playing. This system brings out additional layers for this to take place and with a more historical context.

3. Dynamic. The "constitution" will change much more rapidly. Oct pointed out that he doesn't think this will improve simplicity (this is a forest type comment). A valid concern which should be discussed. The complexity of the ruleset will fluctuate depending on our needs. It also throws a bit of evolution and natural selection into the mix.

4. Emergent. With a faction based system we will be able to try things that have never been done before. If it doesn't work, a new ruleset wouldn't be far away. In this method we may find a totally different way of doing things that is better than what has ever been done before. It may be so amazing we stick with it for the rest of the game.

In that thread almost the entire first page is just strider and myself bouncing around ideas. So far the debate has rested on line-by-line type elements in the proposal and not so much on the general theme itself. Individual points can remain - that is not the issue we are talking about here. What this thread is talking about is do we focus our energies working on a civics like ruleset, a faction like ruleset, or working on a constitution. So far it seems that some people are confusing forests and trees. Talking about trees is important, but that will come after this poll.

I will be honest. I have tried to get into demo games in the past but never got into them. Until recently I haven't really figured out why. This article, while long, articulates it very nicely. It is a very interesting read none the less.

 

You are right. There is a core group trying to protect their "Lego-town", and they do not want other kids to play the way they want with their building pieces. This is what traditional vs. faction is all about. Faction-based allows the game to totally renovate itself from Faction election to Faction election, as a new Faction can decide to toss out an existing ruleset and replace that with a new one, without the cumbersome constitution, judicial and forced guideline procedures we have seen so far.

New initiatives are presented as hopeless, naive, poorly planned etc etc. whereas Traditional is sacred, and not subject to replacement. This is what Legotown is all about, a core group that would like to preserve their playing habitat, with no change at all, and negotiate further metagame structures on top of that. Let us raze legotown for every election, so that the new will of the people will be the new law every time.

 

Provo - here's something to consider that evidently you haven't. Some people (and yes, I am one of them), LIKE a traditional ruleset. We like the predictability, the stability and the simplicity of it. Why should WE present a compromise? Where is the compromise from your cabal of neo-radicalists?

-- Ravensfire

 

There is no real predictability, stability or simplicity of it. Numerous cases have shown that. Referring to as as "your cabal of neo-radicalists" is very simple, as we all want a change for various reasons. From what I know, the Judiciary as it has been in "Traditional" rulesets, the prime
source of exploitation of the demo-game, by a recurring cast of players abusing the peoples and officials power in order to overrule in-game processes. Also, I do not expect a presented compromise from the Tradionalists, since a singular change from the traditionalists in the direction of civics, would represent a non-traditional outcome. However, it seems that the bulk of the support for traditional belongs in the C3C realm, where it rightfully belongs. I suggest the Traditionalists set up a separate C3C Tradtional Demogame, and let those of us who wants a new, fresh and more inspiring game within Civ4BTS, simply go free, and not keep us hostage anymore.

 

Provo - ease off the paranoia there, buddy! Put the tin foil hat aside, and stop looking for the black helicopters. Has ANYONE kept the neo-rad cabal hostage? I think not.

You've got twisted, warped viewpoint that honest disagreement means an attack. I'm not sure where that comes from (of course, weeding through your psuedo-intellictual garbage probably should be used by the CIA as an interrogation technicque), but you really need to drop it. NOBODY has "kept you hostage" on this - point to me a single post where that has happened. Indeed, the person that has tried to keep an idea off the table is YOU. Your continued personal attacks on a group of that have the affront to (gasp!) disagree with your preference (oh, the horror!) has had a noticeable impact on people.

You know - I'm quite tired of that. Congratulations, Provo, you've essentially created exactly what you've been calling me. I will now be the thorn in your side. I will adopt the exact tactics you've been using for years now, continually whining, complaining, sniping and showing outright hostility to any idea that I don't like.

I think I'm going to enjoy this, Provo. The neo-rad cabal has an utterly unworkable idea that's still shrouded in vague concepts and destined to collapse under its own weight.

Thank you, Provo, I'm going to enjoy bashing your idea around, and will crow with delight, as you have done, when it collapses and devolves into nothingness.

-- Ravensfire

 

Moderator Action: General warning - let's play nice and stop bickering with each other.

 

This post should really have gone here, instead of the faction based rules thread, so here it is .

Having recently decided to join the game, i read through the rulesets and i have to say, i definately like the faction based rules better.

As an outsider, the traditional rules seem way to complicated, i even had a hard time following them and reading them. If i didn't have friends playing already, and the traditional ruleset was chosen, i don't know if i would play, because i doubt i could follow the rules that easily.

The faction based rules seem fun, there's a heavy role playing aspect. It allows for more ease of play, to me i'd think it would make the game seem less of a chore and more fun, which it should be, no?

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

logic

 

You have always been like this, but thanks for the declaration here, it is clarifying for outsiders how you operate. People can read other threads, compare notes, and figure out which side has been constructive or not. After this, we will work with the new ruleset, which will not be traditional, at all. We are not quite certain of what it exactly will be, but it will not be traditional.

You will be welcome as a constructive force, and we hope you will add to this game, without bringing forth another iteration of the famed "Judiciary".