Proposal thread: Game and forum rules and constitution for real at the end the final

[James Adams]

rules and constitution will be set in stone, but any changes will need to be polled by members and agree by more than 1/2 of the membership!

The final version agreed by over five people here will be put before the members for any poll and over 1/2 of the membership most agree to it!

You have a week to have our discussion until the polls!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

To start, you ought to dig up that thread containing a rough compilation of rules. It was a bit too heavy on the rules, but might be a framework upon which to start.

[civman2000]

I STRONGLY oppose the use of a strict constitution. I fear becoming an over-organized game!

[civman2000]

I hereby form the AAAC (Association of Apolytonians Against a Constitution)

[shade]

I agree partially with Civman2000...
The rules should be not to strict but also not bend to extremes.
Best might be to dig up the old rules thread and go over all rules there and compair to how we did the things in the last months.

Shade

[CannonFodder]

I agree that the rules should not be strict. We should simply glean what information we can from the original rules, reorganize what makes sense, and get rid of the dumb stuff, possibly adding rules that we think might be important. But I don't think that they should matter that much, a general framework is good enough.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well, we do have a few guidelines on responsibilities for the Advisors, and some common-sense stuff like "Presidents don't screw their people", but with one or two possible additions, we currently have next to no Constitution. It should be against the Constitution to have a Constitution!

[civman2000]

Civfanatics is an excellent place to look to find mistakes (not just for demo games, also for their civ3-stories board too!). I believe that because everyone understands the way it works and newcomers can pick it up quickly there should be no formal constitution

[James Adams]

I agree that the rules should not be strict and should be able to be changed!

[cavebear]

adamsj - I think you should form a Committee of Four to consider what should be in our Constitution. And be sure to include one person who doesn't think there *should* be a Constitution (so that it doesn't get out of hand).

You, of course, should head up this committee.

[James Adams]

Originally posted by cavebear
adamsj - I think you should form a Committee of Four to consider what should be in our Constitution. And be sure to include one person who doesn't think there *should* be a Constitution (so that it doesn't get out of hand).

You, of course, should head up this committee.

Who should be in the commitee? I will be head, but who should be the other three? Select by ourself members, it is up to you!

I will pick the three members who are mention the most to be in the committee, you have two days!

[MrWhereItsAt]

I nominate civman2000 as a member of the officially unnamed "Anticonstitutionalists' party".

[James Adams]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I nominate civman2000 as a member of the officially unnamed "Anticonstitutionalists' party".

That great That one vote for Civman2000!

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by adamsj
Who should be in the commitee?

The Sodaquistas should have a committee member, as our influence spreads throughout Apolytonia...

[James Adams]

Which and who is in the Sodaquistas?!