New Patch

[Ninot]

I would favor a 75%

Many people will want to patch ahead.. but we must NOT forge ahead if our Euro and Asian buddies are gonna be left in the dark.
We need something more than decisive, but super-cisive!

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Spiffor
We'll probably have a majority in favor of upgrading. Question is : What majority do we need to officially upgrade ? Should we need a 51% majority, at the risk of letting up to 49% of people out of the loop ? Should we need a 67% majority ? 75% majority ?

Seems like a question this basic (since it amounts to excluding people from the game) amounts to something akin to a constitutional question. I'd say a 67% majority or higher.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Spiffor
We'll probably have a majority in favor of upgrading. Question is : What majority do we need to officially upgrade ? Should we need a 51% majority, at the risk of letting up to 49% of people out of the loop ? Should we need a 67% majority ? 75% majority ?
Personnaly, I favor a 67% majority, as it doesn't hinder us from updating too much, without frustrating too many people.

I also think we should wait some days after the patch is released before polling : remember, a patch almost always had problems the very day it was out (some kind of a tradition at Firaxis ). And polling few days after the patch is out will let us profit from the feedback from users.

We can maybe let our to be supreme court find some solution. I'll have to go back and see if some how this can fit in their jurisdiction, but it would certaily be a great field test of our government's next addition.

Kman

For those who would point out the supreme court may not come into being, that I am being presumptious, so be it. I am fully confident the bill will be ratified into an ammendment

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by Kramerman
I'll have to go back and see if some how this can fit in their jurisdiction ...

One possible argument for jurisdiction: using the patch would effectively bar citizens from playing the game.

[Spiffor]

Kramerman :
I know you love our soon-to-be-born court, but please : don't give such an immense power to 5 people. Don't forget : if we decide to patch, those who can't will be out of the game.
I finally agree with Ninot such a decision should be met by a 75% majority. We can't allow many people to be fired from the game. And we definitely can't give such an immense power to justices, the same way we can't give it to ministers.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Robber Baron

One possible argument for jurisdiction: using the patch would effectively bar citizens from playing the game.

We would need to have a Bill of Rights first. Convention says we shouldn't bar citizens from playing (esp if it's not their fault), but it'd be nice to have this in the COL.

civman's Bill of Rights needs some work, but that's why he put it up for discussion. I estimate at least a few days for public opinon to gather and more ideas to develop and be refined, then another few days for the poll. [shameless plug] everyone go join that discussion and make sure no one gets left out! [/shameless plug]

as it stands, I support the 75% requirement, but I don't know what sort of legal basis that has. If the public doesn't support this and an early patching majority allows this travesty of justice, then the President should just make a "Declaration" and hope the ministers back it enough to push it through until we get a Bill of Rights.

[Kramerman]

I finally agree with Ninot such a decision should be met by a 75% majority. We can't allow many people to be fired from the game. And we definitely can't give such an immense power to justices, the same way we can't give it to ministers.

Remeber our checks and balances? The court can be over ridden if an unacceptable decision is made by the court. And remeber, they are on our team, they want to do the best for Apolytonia (or so they should), besides, they wouldn't want to black mark their political carrier by barring to many people from the game.

Kman

EDIT: I personally think 75% is the best answer myself and don't really care how this problem will be solved, as long as it is done so satisfactorily

[Aggie]

Looking at the readme, the patch has little real effect on the civ3 game, most has to do with the editor. Maybe someone can ask at the chat for the patch if the other versions can use this or will the saves be compatable. In that case some patched and some not would be ok.
For short if the person actually playing can play with patch and then send the game to non patch people, we don't have a problem. However I say if anybody is unable to play with the new patch we all have to go patchless. I just seems like the right thing to do.
Aggie

[Jon Shafer]

I don't think we should patch it until all members have access to 1.29f.

Barring someone from the game isn't worth fixing a few bugs, IMO.

[Sheik]

We must not upgrade if upgrading means people not located in United States can't play. We should have some members in Europe try to patch their game and they can give us the results.

[theViking]

I have an idea, why cannot the game be played on both systems, if the President’s system is upgraded with the patch, somebody can play the same moves on the old system afterwards. Then everybody should be able to get the save files for their system and if something goes wrong in the new system we have a backup.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Ninot
we must NOT forge ahead if our Euro and Asian buddies are gonna be left in the dark.

I LOVE how everyone generalises this way - I must be Asian!

I urge everyone to NOT upgrade to the patch for the official game. The version we have at the moment is fairly stable (at least compared with the first couple of versions), and even though I am not personally disadvantaged (US patch seems to work for me), it would annoy me to see so many unable to open the game or run for Government if they wanted to.

Think of the good of everyone - we have got used to this version, and until we can all upgrade, let's keep it that way!

Viking - perhaps the new patch fiddles with some settings that will be sufficiently different between the two games to cause problems. Moreover, this requires performing battles twice - with certainly different results in some circumstances. Then we have two games being played, and then we really COULD have two Presidents. Hey!


Just kidding.

[mtgillespie]

Why not post an unofficial poll, on which version of Civ people are using. Don't forget, it's not a US patch, it's an english language version patch. Would our savegame work with a foreign language version of the game anyway? If not, everyone who is playing the game is doing so on and english language version, and by definition can patch at the same time.

[civman2000]

1. I will add a clause about patches to the Bill of Rights asap!
2. i will personally get the patch, as I do not have to play the game. It is very unfortunate thatit has to come out later outside the US.

[Jon Shafer]

I still say that unless everyone can play, it's grossly unfair to exclude someone from playing the game for any reason.