Which ruleset do we focus on?

[Shattered]

Provo, remember that if we voted for a traditional we would (i hope) come up with a entirely new set of rules to the last game (at least change the things that went wrong), so it's not so traditional as you may think, as it could be a completely new ruleset Also with the faction system, we could end voting for a traditional ruleset anyway! .

That's the beauty of the faction system. If somehow people who support a traditionalist style of play take control of the nation, then they can implement their constitutions and stable(boring) gameplay mechanics. At least untill a different faction takes control from them. This faction could set up a democratic election system based on the last demo-game if such suited their fancies. But only as long as they held the public opinion and power in their grasp. That's the awesome thing about this new system, it allows people to be creative, working within their faction to create new ways to play. Unlike the old system, which only allows you to play in a structured unchanging, unflinching, stale beauracracy. I would like to see unlimited flexibility, not mind numbing rule worshiping.

 

[Provolution]

That's the beauty of the faction system. If somehow people who support a traditionalist style of play take control of the nation, then they can implement their constitutions and stable(boring) gameplay mechanics. At least untill a different faction takes control from them. This faction could set up a democratic election system based on the last demo-game if such suited their fancies. But only as long as they held the public opinion and power in their grasp. That's the awesome thing about this new system, it allows people to be creative, working within their faction to create new ways to play. Unlike the old system, which only allows you to play in a structured unchanging, unflinching, stale beauracracy. I would like to see unlimited flexibility, not mind numbing rule worshiping.

Hear hear. This is exactly what Faction does. My original civic-proposal was "the structured unchanging, unflinching, stale bureaucracy" of civics, and as bad as the traditional one, in that it imposed a sort of expert rule on top of unwitting players being thrown into it. With factions, thanks to the ones of you that developed that on top of my stale civics proposal, every player can have a fair chance of impacting the game at any stage, without being referred back to ancient demogames in the archives and without being patronized without being able to come with a counter-proposal. Throw out the 6000 year constitution which would require 2/3 majority to change, allowing a handful to dictate how the rest of the game would develop.

I am happy you voted Traditional with the perspective you had Joe Harker, which means you got a flexible mind. And who knows, maybe you can make Traditional a Faction in itself, all you need is good internal organization, and to choose a select civic choice strategy.

 

[Joe Harker]

What happens if its a draw?

 

[Shattered]

*sigh*


---long pause---

Then I guess we get the wonder and joy of waiting even longer for this game to start up.

 

[Provolution]

It is 7-5 right now, as CG switched. With a draw, Faction-based would be more fair, since Traditional would fit in as a constitutional option.

 

[Strider]

It is 7-5 right now, as CG switched. With a draw, Faction-based would be more fair, since Traditional would fit in as a constitutional option.

LogicSequence can't vote yet (group membership), but stated faction support. So that is 7-6. CG will have to get his vote changed over.

The stupid group membership is more difficult than it's worth.

 

[Provolution]

LogicSequence can't vote yet (group membership), but stated faction support. So that is 7-6. CG will have to get his vote changed over.

The stupid group membership is more difficult than it's worth.

I think he wrote for a vote change above.

 

[Provolution]

It is faction based then, with at least 7-6, possibly also 8-5 with CG changing over. Now I think it is high time to get a fresh forum, so we can agree on what Faction-based should be in a more detailed way.

 

[AluminumKnight]

It is faction based then, with at least 7-6, possibly also 8-5 with CG changing over. Now I think it is high time to get a fresh forum, so we can agree on what Faction-based should be in a more detailed way.

Seconded. Remember that if this system fails (which it might), we can always scrap the game and start a new one. We should get moving though, and it would great if everyone would give this a try.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

Seconded. Remember that if this system fails (which it might), we can always scrap the game and start a new one. We should get moving though, and it would great if everyone would give this a try.

*Calculates chance of failure*
100-x
0<x<100



Seriously though it seems that the failure will come from the people and not the system

 

[DaveShack]

The poll closed? I had figured it would be one of those open ended things, so didn't vote yet.

I vote faction, on the grounds that it will be better to proceed with what the active people are proposing.

 

[croxis]

Strider did say the poll was only open for four days

 

[Provolution]

All rite, good to have DS aboard , he is one of the players that build bridges, and would be great towards making this ruleset work better.
There will still be several game rules, such as playing the save etc. Daveshack was one of the men behind the DP institute, which I personally would like to keep.