Demo Game #4

[cavebear]

I think I've incorporated all the suggestions here (except the one about Presidential repetitions, it wouldn't fit and we'll do that one later).

3 days.

[Ben Kenobi]

I voted.

I think a bloodlust game without spies or diplomats or trade will be most difficult.

Having boats, etc. I don't care either way.

[rjmatsleepers]

I have also voted, but I expect to be a member of the peanut gallery rather than a candidate for high office.

RJM at Sleeper's

[MrWhereItsAt]

Oops.

[duke o' york]

That closed quite early!
I took the day off work on Friday and so missed out on all the days that this was open.
But there were only 5 replies, and some of the voters didn't even vote on all of the questions. If we're only going to have 6 people interested (myself included ), then I don't know how much longer the Civ 2 mods will let us play. It might end up as a complicated SXN game id so few want to play. The Israeli game seems to be doing a little better, but that's probably only because of the political angle. From my point of view, the Russian game pretty much died before being finished, and although we finished quite strongly here, no-one seems in too much of a hurry to play again. We should consolidate, and just have one Civ 2 Demo game! This one!

[Zedd]

RL kept me from checking on things so I too missed the poll. I generally agree with the majority in this poll however there seems to be a tie between 1b "500 AD" and 1b "1500 AD". So if it makes a difference my vote would have been "500 AD"

[cavebear]

Three days is the regular polling time, but if anyone posts the choices they would have made (all of them), I'll add those to the polling results.

[Sparrowhawk]

/me didn't vote, but will happily participate in whatever the group comes up with (oops I didn't vote in a democracy game......it seems almost sacreligious )

[cavebear]

OK, I propose the following:

1. I send the announcement of the Demo3 game end to "the powers that be" and add a statement about organizing a new game.

2. When that announcement shows up, I re-post the poll with a *5* day voting time.

3. After that, we go with the results and see what interest we draw.

Sound reasonable?

[Zedd]

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I'm more in favour of changing how the game is played, rather than the parameters of the game itself.

For example... it makes no sense that we have elections when we don't even know Republic or Demo. Monarchies don't have elections! It also makes no sense that an established democratic regime would hold a revolution of its own volition - who overthrows themselves?

[my vision]

Monthly elections should only be held when we are in Republic/Demo. In all other cases, power should be held until someone else is sufficiently fed up to post a poll (the nearest we can come to a power struggle) saying "So-and-so (demagogue, witch doctor, SMC) should be replaced by me" - and that poll would reflect the ouster or non-ouster of the incumbent.

Polls in authoritarian governments would be replaced by discussion threads, with the loudest getting the attention of the current demagogue/SMC/whoever. And that loud person might well be able to overthrow the incumbent (by a power struggle resolved by polling, of course), should the incumbent not listen.

Once we learn a new (representative) government tech, that should trigger an election. Once we switch to a representative government, we'd hold elections and polls as we have always done. However... if some would-be demagogue feels we should switch to Fundy... he can always post a poll to do so, and oust the current government. Since a real-world democracy or republic would never switch to communism or fundy without a revolution, a seated representative government would have to resign, if the will of the people called for fundy or commie.

[/vision]

Maybe I'm crazy , but that seems fun, and less structured than the current system is - what with all the uncontested elections and all.

[Hydey]

missed it

[atawa]

Good ideas STYOM

But this would be a lot better to implement if there was a save for all policy.

(Yes, its that time again )

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, I did hold a turnchat, and only one citizen showed up, even though I offered the save. I just don't see sufficient demand to give the save to everyone, and some real dangers in cheating to discover events far beyond what we ought to know.

Secondly, since our ministers are going to be devoting more of their time to the game, they ought to be rewarded for their sacrifice, with access to the save.

Finally, I have striven to be more inclusive within the bounds of precedent to make the game more open to the citizens, in my screenshots, log and turnchat. Further suggestions beyond giving the save would be most welcome, ideas how we can encourage the participation of citizens, in providing them more information.

I suppose we could call this increasing the transparency of our government.

[duke o' york]

STYOM, what do you mean that the loudest in discussion would hold sway? Does that mean that if I were to go into the chatroom and type IN CAPITALS then I'd be ostracised for being rude, but would also see my ideas put into practice?
Maybe the monarch or despot could refuse to allow revolutions and remain in power for the entire game, maybe declaring himself the High Priest if he fancied some fundamentalist fun?
To allow everyone a say, then I'd prefer it if those taking part were viewed as advisors to the person playing the game and then the next "president" (for want of a better name) is chosen from their number. This is the system as it is really, but maybe when we're in a despotism they could be called thanes or something more appropriate than ministers.
Otherwise the system works and is more inclusive than what you're proposing. Of course, when we're in any non-representative government then the "president" will have absolute veto powers and can ignore what he's advised to do as much as he likes.