Is this a democracy game?

[DAVOUT]

Reading all opinions expressed about how the new game should be organized, it appears that a demogame can be two different things :

- a game played by a team of people interested only in winning; the only organization needed is the minimum enabling the game to developp smoothly. The game is the finality.

- the building of a universe in which the justification of the game is only to generate the events around which infinite possibilities of organization will be offered to empire-builders. The game is a pretext.

These two points of view are too different to be reconciled, and attempting to find a reasonable balance (as did the con-con) only increases the frustrations.

I believe that we should think about two facts :
- the first game attracted a lot of new people who were fascinated by the building-universe side, and then fallen in love for CIV3.
- playing against the AI, after all progress made by everybody, is not as challenging as it was; the challenge is now in the MP game; it can be predicted that a demogame oriented toward having the game going on would produce not much excitement : victory is sure, and it will be reached more and more quickly.

Therefore, I think that one way to shorten the discussion about the constitution is to recognize which demogame we want.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Can't we just do what we were doing before?

[Kloreep]

I agree some of the challenge has gone out of this one, considering all we did with a bad start in the last one. So, IMO, neither "democratic issues" nor the game itself is what should be important; what I'm looking for in the next one is the community and the fun - the gazettes, the RP arguments, and maybe RP itself.

[Aidun]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Can't we just do what we were doing before?

Originally posted by Kloreep
I agree some of the challenge has gone out of this one, considering all we did with a bad start in the last one. So, IMO, neither "democratic issues" nor the game itself is what should be important; what I'm looking for in the next one is the community and the fun - the gazettes, the RP arguments, and maybe RP itself.

You mean No-Nonsense, just Play.

Aidun

[MrWhereItsAt]

Yeah, kinda. I just like getting on with the game, and when there is an issue, we either look back at what we did in the last game that worked or we work it out between ourselves. Kind of a system of dealing with difficulties via precedents. The whole point of the Prez/Ministers is that they are reasonable and they are there to facilitate agreement. Usually perfect agreement is not possible, which is where the poll voting Democracy thing comes in. The aim should be to hear all views, to make them known publically, and to reach a decision based on a vote.

That's all I want, anyway.

[theViking]

Originally posted by Aidun




You mean No-Nonsense, just Play.

Aidun

I think that is the best way.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Kloreep
what I'm looking for in the next one is the community and the fun - the gazettes, the RP arguments, and maybe RP itself.

This is the most important argument. The fun came mostly from the community, the interaction between the game and the people, between the people themselves, between the people and their creations (academies, maps, gazette ...), and between the people and the laws they have voted. All that made the community and produced the fun. Whatever you withdraw from the receipe will change the taste.

Anyway, considering the results of the poll (8 Democracy, 7 Game, 11 Well balanced), it could be worth, assuming Kloreeps opinion is widely shared, to make the changes contemplated to the constitution. That would suppose that both parties reduce slightly their demands.

If an agreement cannot be found, the pure gamers could adopt the same organization than the intersite team.

[UnOrthOdOx]

DAVOUT, others,


I agree that it was largely the different little projects that were the most fun part of the game.

However,

Certainly you all remember the long periods between chats, times when there was little to DRIVE those discussions/projects.

Perhaps I misunderstood the point of this to begin with. Do I think we should halt gameplay so that two members can decide in court if some poll was legal or not? Not as long as the poll in question was not a vital decision, ie leaders. When you are asking of the DEMOCRACY of things, I think more of legality and such than roleplaying of the groups.

I think we played through just fine through the last game, I think it was pretty balanced MOST of the time between gameplay and 'democracy', at times I feel we went a little overboard on the 'democracy' side of things and caused a slowing of the game which made those not involved in the democracy side leave. Roleplaying we could sure used more of, however.

[Panag]

hi ,

"democrazy" , pfff , who needs it , .....

we better make a poll , "do you want a dictator ship that does everything in the intrest of the people or not" , .....

have a nice day