Between terms should do.
But if they can post saves at the significant events in the life of the empire (such as taking/razing an enemy's capital), that might be good as well.
Yes, Always. We can trust our People
Yes, but only between terms.
No, Never. This empire is corrupt and we canno trust anyone.
Between terms sounds good.
Between terms should do.
But if they can post saves at the significant events in the life of the empire (such as taking/razing an enemy's capital), that might be good as well.
Jeeze, this is a close vote.
Allowing saves to be viewed between terms does not diminish the ministers responsibility. He still needs to post screenies and inform ppl of whats going on, esp during the second half of the term when alot has changed and elections are coming up.
Not allowing people to view saves is absurd. Hiding the save files from the citizenry is TYRANNY. By limiting the saves to a select few, we limit the fun to a select few. We could have over a hundred members, all voting, but only 10 or 11 or so would be able to know whats really going on.
The whole point of the democracy game is for all of us to work as a team and lead our civ to global domination, but how can the populace make good decisions if they cannot see what is happening in the actual game first-hand? Answer: they cannot. Restricting information could mean bad decisions on the part of the people. Remember Trip, the people control this nation, you are no "better" than anyone of us, and since the people call the shots the people should be extremely well informed (which means access to save files every month).
At this time, i feel compelled to quote an expert on this matter, a certain friend: "Beware of he who would deny you information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
As we progress through the ages, we should ALL be allowed to look on at our progress with pride. Let's make the Demo game fun for all, and let everyone have an active part in forming our nation, and seeing it grow.
Last edited by Timeline; July 19, 2002 at 18:56.
The difference is that the Ministers/Prez are elected, thus a certain degree of trust needs to be placed in them based on their merits and performance as seen by the rest of us. After a few terms of the Civ2 game it is very easy to note the top posting citizens - these are certainly the most dedicated members, and they tend to get the positions they want in the Council, as they are dependable posters and have done so for the game. It is only natural that it is a kind of "reward" for effort put in the game, and these ppl are also the ones with good (or at least outspoken) ideas and the time to properly devote to the game.Originally posted by Franses
Besides, I do not see at all why ministers and presidents are more trustworthy than other people.
And what about those who don't have Civ3! Do they just sit here and imagine what the map looks like, or will the Ministers post screenshots for their benefit?
In response to Timeline:
it is not tyranny. It is the Minister's responsiblity to post all that is in their domain for the coming set of turns - all questions must be answered. It is Open Government.
The whole purpose for the time limit on Council positions is that everyone who shows some little dedication gets a go at it, and thus gets the save for a while. Else why bother having elections for Ministers' positions? They just get the dull job of trawling through the forum to find every piece of info posted here, before giving it to the Prez. Why should the Minister need to let ppl know what's happening when
1. the only person who saw the turn and can actually post on events is the Prez, and
2. everyone can see the state of things anyway - 'cause they have the save.
If they have no role that only they can perform, Ministers are hardly needed at all. Why not just do everything by a set of Committees? Or go for a REAL Tyranny (albeit benevolent) where all the ppl let the Prez know what they wish, and the Prez plays?
Between terms. Excessive power to the people will always disrupt any nation, because the masses are frequently misguided.
'Yep, I've been drinking again.'
Because the game is not up for anyone to come by and look at. Like MWIA said, what if someone working against from another forum/site came by, thought he'd be funny and downloaded it, then posted screenshots or something? Can you assure that that won't happen?Originally posted by Franses
Unbelievable that people even think of not distrubuting the sav files. It is a game, guys. Give everyone the opportunity to view its progress. Besides, I do not see at all why ministers and presidents are more trustworthy than other people (perhaps in real life it is even the opposite?
I might have a solution to the problem! Is it possible to make a room (which is "under" this room) locked for newcomers and untrustfully people (If those exist). In this room the save games are posted. To get into this room you have to be trusted in that you don't play ahead or reveal some of the secrets...
Though anyway, if this is posible or not, then I say: "savegame for everyone", it's not fun just looking at screenshots...
This space is empty... or is it?
They get the privilege of being able to see the save every turn, rather than just once a term(month?).
Also they get to directly advise the president and have great influence over their department (sounds like fun to me).
They need to keep the ppl informed for their term, and can post screenies if they like, etc.
Even if saves are posted once a term I would still very much like to see the opening development of our nation for the first month or so, so I am running for Minister of Imperial Expansion.
Trip: if you really feel that is a threat then the save files should be sent to Members only. Although I don't really care for that idea (as it would require e mail addresses from every member and possibly limit others abilities to follow the game). But it would solve your problem even though I don't esp care for it.
Perhaps members that *want* to see the save game can have it sent to them via e mailhaving that option would silence opposers to the "closed game" policy that you are proposing, and also not make those that don't want to see the file so they dont have to (yes the minister still posts information on how they are doing) it would also limit threats from curruption...
Gotta run guys, catch ya in a bit!
Hmmmm, I'd be a little more comfortable with that (it limits things, but not as much as I'd like... sure 12 people can be as bad as any, but there's much less chance of them doing something wrong, accepting the responsibility of being elected, than the 60+ members). Let's see how the poll goes.Originally posted by Timeline
Trip: if you really feel that is a threat then the save files should be sent to Members only. Although I don't really care for that idea (as it would require e mail addresses from every member and possibly limit others abilities to follow the game). But it would solve your problem even though I don't esp care for it.
Perhaps members that *want* to see the save game can have it sent to them via e mail
I agree wholeheartedly. What you wind up getting if you limit information is a disenfranchised people; check out America for example, which is a republic, that according to the Pledge, it's closer to a democratic republic than anything else.Originally posted by Franses
Unbelievable that people even think of not distrubuting the sav files. It is a game, guys. Give everyone the opportunity to view its progress. Besides, I do not see at all why ministers and presidents are more trustworthy than other people (perhaps in real life it is even the opposite?
What is the point of getting involved if you have limited input as a citizen? Sounds like paranoia that someone from another forum is going to come in here and ruin it. How many people here go to other sites? Probably most, do any of us ruin those sites, or try to ruin this one? Maybe if it's one of those Clan things I hear about: Skaven and Guardian. Even then, that's petty.
Ministers will still have plenty to do, even with saves always available. Since the higher ups are the ones doing the actual moves, it makes no sense to not allow people to see it.
If you limit saves to rarely be seen, then you will have less input from the people as more people will say Obviously you don't trust us, the people; our votes don't matter/count.
Do you trust the politicians in your country to be more reliable and trustworthy than yourself? If you do, I have a do it yourself building kit to sell you because politicians the world over have shown themselves to be unreliable, untrustworthy, etc., yet they still keep getting elected.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree. Why should a person even consider being involved if this is the case? At least IRL, you can see what your politician is doing and take action quickly to get him out of office, even during their term if it is bad enough.Timeline Jeeze, this is a close vote.
Allowing saves to be viewed between terms does not diminish the ministers responsibility. He still needs to post screenies and inform ppl of whats going on, esp during the second half of the term when alot has changed and elections are coming up .
Not allowing people to view saves is absurd. Hiding the save files from the citizenry is TYRANNY. By limiting the saves to a select few, we limit the fun to a select few. We could have over a hundred members, all voting, but only 10 or 11 or so would be able to know whats really going on.
The whole point of the democracy game is for all of us to work as a team and lead our civ to global domination, but how can the populace make good decisions if they cannot see what is happening in the actual game first-hand? Answer: they cannot. Restricting information could mean bad decisions on the part of the people. Remember Trip, the people control this nation, you are no "better" than anyone of us, and since the people call the shots the people should be extremely well informed (which means access to save files every month).
At this time, i feel compelled to quote an expert on this matter, none other than Commisioner Previnlov : "Beware of he who would deny you information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
As we progress through the ages, we should ALL be allowed to look on at our progress with pride. Let's make the Demo game fun for all, and let everyone have an active part in forming our nation, and seeing it grow.
Trip, can you assure us it will happen? Also, only you can ruin your own fun. Something I learned a long time ago: we are in control of our emotions and emotional responses: If we ALLOW someone to ruin our fun, it is because we allowed it to happen; we chose to let it get ruined.
This debate is turning off people from getting involved. Just because some posts a lot doesn't mean that have more to contribute than others, just spending more time posting, even if they are posting great material. Others post elsewhere: CivFanatics, 1BigCommmunity, AllCiv, etc. Others spend more time learning the nuances of the game. These people are just as deserving to run for office, and get elected. I suspect it will be mostly a popularity contest anyway based on comments currently out there. That is a bad reason to elect someone. Of course, it is ONLY a game. Let us remember that?
These comments are meant as criticisms, just legitimate concerns, informed voter issues.
As it now stands, all is winning. How can everyone having access be a bad thing, other than what has been already posted? Overinformed voters is preferable to underinformed voters, unless you want to stay in power, and have reasons to keep them underinformed (which is what most IRL pols subscribe to; after all, if enough of the people knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be reelected.).
The reasons that the same corrupt politicians keep getting elected is for a few reasons. First, people don't really care enough to do something about it. Second, most people wouldn't run for political office even if they would win, so the same group of people is always up for election. Third, for the more prominant political positions, expensive campaigning and financial issues limit office to the wealthy elite. None of these is the case here, or if it is, then it has no significance upon what we're doing.
At the Infogrames forum, I can name you at least 3 or 4 times in the past year where someone has tried to ruin what was going on by some means or another... massive spamming, hacking, you name it, and that could be the case here as well. I'm not saying it will, but that it's a possibility. It's not that I don't trust the regular people who visit here, it's simply an external security issue. I don't trust full-time politicians because they've been bred and shaped to work within the system. If that involves being corrupt, then that's how it will be. I don't anticipate the same issues arising here.
Kring, I believe the issue is that it might happen, not whether it might not. No one can say either way if it will (unless they plan on doing it, or having someone do it), and that's why we must take precautions. I don't see how I would be ruining my own fun if I became upset after someone from another forum/site came, downloaded the .SAV, and posted screenshots of the map and all the civ locations everywhere. Are we supposed to shrug it off and keep playing as if we didn't know where the Japanese were? Or that there's a huge, incredibly resource-laiden uninhabited continent just a few tiles away from our visible sight?
So far you've been focusing on why having an open save file is good. If nothing else, tell me how you would address such a situation, should it occur, since that is the only reason I advocate keeping the .SAV distribution restricted.
Several ways have already been mentioned. Banned the person; possibly permanent. I am an Admin at another site; as such (and I would think a similar thing here), I can see someone's IP address, and ban that IP address if needed; it hasn't ever been needed BTW; this would be to prevent the person from getting a new name and coming back in. Of course, they are ways around this as well). Emailing the file would also work; a hassle for those who have limited email access. Public humiliation would work against some people. Limit access to the Democracy board; as an Admin, I can limit access to a specific board so I would think the Admins and mods here would have that same power. I could see where some people (I won't mention names, but you could probably think of more than I can) would not be allowed to join, since they could be too disruptive.
Mightism rarely occurs, so I am not going to worry about it. How many mights actually come to pass? Very few. I have this same kind of discussion with a co worker, always worrying about mights that don't happen. I might get hit by an asteroid, but do I prepare for it? No, in case there was any doubt. I do have a firewall since I have been hacked myself, so I do understand that issue full well. Some people can be full of mischief;
I have yet to see a good reason for not allowing full access: Isn't that what democracy is all about? My biggest concern is that not allowing people full access is going to discourage people getting involved, as I mentioned earlier. It will become like some secret society. Limit who can join and have access would be an option, but a poor one.
On the issue of major money for campaigns, media have said over and over again, that it doesn't win races, except for when a media backed person loses to someone that spent a lot of money. LOL.
A pity that such a great discussion is nix to the bunch of numbers at the top of the page.
If access could be limited to only to people known and trusted around here, or if that's too restrictive, for the members who have asked to be signed up, then I could be fine with that. I'm not sure how willing Gramphos might be to do something like that though, so that kind of thing may not be feasible.
As far as 'mightism', I have to say that I've seen quite a few things happen with disgruntled... uh, weirdos in my few years browsing forums, and I don't see why the possibility might not exist during the undoubtedly long time that this will be going for. I'm just trying to preserve the securty of the game... the last thing anyone serious about this wants is for the game to be ruined by one person looking at the map. I understand where you're coming from, I just feel it's a very important issue to address concerning the demo game.
I also understand where you are coming from as well. I have installed a firewall on my computer because of hackers. Is there anything worth hacking on my computer? No, well except my Civ game LOL. If you restrict the saves to only the Pres/Ministers, then you are doing a disservice to the people. Maybe, we would see something they missed. I have that happen before when I posted (and others) a game asking for feedback. I found a Persian Galley the original person thought was Chinese; they wondered why the Persians were still in Diplomacy 1,000+ years later.
I used to think I had seen it all, but too many times since people have proved that I haven't. I appreciate that this might happen, but how many times has this site been hacked since it came out? I am sure the occasional mass spammer showed up.
I would see little point in participating if I am unable to view the map as needed. Would I play ahead? No, I didn't even reload when the Barb Galley sank my Settler Team ship early game.To me, it is a trust issue. If trust is that unsure, then there is no point in doing the game to begin with.
Institute a zero tolerance policy; and enforce it if needed. Make the consequences severe. That is how you stop most crime (and to me this would be a crime; not as bad as most, but it is our fun, he/she would be trying to mess with). This wouldn't stop the meanest person, but it would stop the vast majority.
The same kind of debate is currently going on in the USA about security vs freedom. If you lose too much freedom to security, then you risk tyranny.
Don't allow the save files to be open to everyone for several reasons:
1. this gives more incentive for people to try to get elected.
2. more fun. can we really trust that everything is going as well as the war minister would have us believe?
3. keeps ministers on their toes - they have to post frequent screenshots.
4. makes things more political - because there's more at stake and the possibility of corruption - such as ministers lying.
On the other hand:
We need to have a few select individuals who will act as "reporters" who will try to gain access to information. The freedom of the press will help ensure the ministers stay honest.
We'll need a large number of reporters to sift through all the save files.
I know I don't want to load up save files just to look at them and not play - so I would only look at the save files if there was any indication the nation was being derailed. checking on the sav files can be a hassle - so maybe it's fine to leave it open. most people would take the ministers at their word unless there was strong reason to doubt.
Senior bureaucrats (like the Historian and aides) should have access all the time.
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
OR...
how about letting the President and Ministers decide?
If they want to release info, good. But if not, then if the public is incensed, we'll impeach them and elect someone who WILL give us access to information.
So in wartime, it's like they shut down freedom of the press and feed us propaganda.
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Captain, that gave me a idea.
Perhaps we could have a 'Reporter' position, who's sole job is to provide the public was as much information as possible. That would be his sole job... to let people know what's going on in as many ways as possible, as complex as people desire.
Yea, I was thinking of that too and bouncing the title of "Minister of Propaganda" around in my head lol. But maybe someone who signs on as a reporter is gonna be a little more trustworthy than someone who spreads "propaganda" (which is defined as information or ideas)
I think an independent Reporter should be a separate position from the Ministry of Propaganda.
I'm not sure whether the Historian position will be more propaganda or neutral observer.
Also, is there any facilities for the concept of a loyal opposition? that might be interesting to have a minister whose job it is to oppose the government.
Proud Citizen of the Civ 3 Demo Game
Retired Justice of the Court, Staff member of the War Academy, Staff member of the Machiavelli Institute
Join the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game! ~ Play the Civ 3 Demo Game $Mini-Game!
Voici mon secret. Il est très simple: on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Clearly, such a person would have to be very well-known and trusted throughout the forum, for it would be his task to convey accurate information... I may make a poll to consider the creation of a Reporter, if people support my idea.
I do like the idea, but I prefer to have the savegamefile...Originally posted by Trip
Captain, that gave me a idea.
Perhaps we could have a 'Reporter' position, who's sole job is to provide the public was as much information as possible. That would be his sole job... to let people know what's going on in as many ways as possible, as complex as people desire.
This space is empty... or is it?
I favour that idea also, but if the poll result is for the save to be distributed (despite my and others' misgivings ), then distributed it must be.
I prefer the reporter.
If everyone has the .sav there is always the one **** that starts playing with unknown information.
But we are a democracy..
Yes, but currently, the poll is far beyond a supermajority (67%). If so many people here agree on something which I aimed directly at this thread, then why not count it? My poll was created as a compromise, and it's showing to have results... why not count them?Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I favour that idea also, but if the poll result is for the save to be distributed (despite my and others' misgivings ), then distributed it must be.
If we, the general populace, cannot see the game file, then what the heck would be the point. The game would be imaginary to us for all intents and purposes. If one of the general populace becomes elected, then he would have no idea of our (or maybe your) empire's history. Furthermore, their would be no reason for any of the general populace to retain interest in this project. The point of democracy is putting some trust in the people, although they may not deserve and may abuse it, it is still better then the alternative.
Est-ce que tu as vu une baleine avec un queue taché?
If you don't feel the slightist bit joyful seeing the Iraqis dancing in the street, then you are lost to the radical left. If you don't feel the slightest bit bad that we had to use force to do this, then you are lost to the radical right.
Why dont we have the save file avaliable at any time during the game at the request of say 2/3 of the people. Or maybe the president could make the decision to release a save file if he wants to.
btween terms will do good because all the time then it would lose some of the fun but between terms it lets ppl be informed and the fun stays there
O I also support that of the savegame when sth very important happens
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks