Naming new cities

Purple · June 12, 2002, 18:01

Do we have a procedure or policy for naming newly founded cities or renaming captured cities?

If not, here's a suggestion: let each member offer one name. This will create a pool from which a city name will be selected, perhaps randomly, when needed.

We also need Great Leader names.

I hereby apply for the post of Minister of Nomenclature.

Purple · June 12, 2002, 18:10

Personally, I favor retaining a captured city's name. However, I can see where renaming might be a Good Thing, for example to honor a prominent person or significant event.

Names should not include the word "New."

We should keep in mind that shorter names obscure less of the map.

For convenience, names should be pronounceable.

punkbass2000 · June 12, 2002, 18:15

Perhaps naming rights could go down the CoC (as soon as the CoC is decided). For example, the first city would be named by the prez, second by the vice prez, whoever's next (military?).

Jon Shafer · June 12, 2002, 18:20

I agree with punkie. If someone from the citizenry comes up with a good name, just give it to one of the members of the Senate, and then we can run down a list or something. Not that it really matters anyways.

Kuciwalker · June 12, 2002, 19:09

We should name them after active members, though not in the order that they signed up. If we decide to name it after someone, though, they can choose to name it themselves instead of just using their name (everyone with me? that was a little odd).

Spiffor · June 12, 2002, 19:42

I think it's a good idea, but 2 problems arise :
In what order should we give ppl the right to name a city ?
Whhat if our number of cities exceeds the number of people ?

punkbass2000 · June 12, 2002, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Whhat if our number of cities exceeds the number of people ?

The go from the end to the beginning again.

Kuciwalker · June 12, 2002, 21:13

We should name them only after active members, and then we go through again, but then they have to choose a name that's not their own.

Spiffor · June 12, 2002, 21:34

I'd rather say they chosse the name, whatever it is (say, Uber will cal his city "UberKrux", I'll call my city "Production" for example). The only restriction we should give to players is not to offend someone when namin the city (say, "Togas sucks" or something

)

Captain · June 12, 2002, 23:01

I like Purple's suggestions.

I also favour the practice of declaring a 'hometown' and if ministers mess up my hometown, then that's a blackmark against them when the next elections come up. It's completely arbitrary since I don't really have any stake in the digital town, but it'll give me more reasons to vote for/against people when their playing strategies are indistinguishable.

Names I popularly use are:

Citadel (capital)
Verdant (fertile city)
Bastion (military stronghold city)
Omnicron (high production city)
Venture (city with potential, but risks being captured)
Resurrection (city I rebuilt over ruins)
Morass (city I placed stupidly)

Just my 0.02$

Moral Hazard · June 13, 2002, 02:05

Whats wrong with offending people

I like the idea of cycling the naming right through the counsel (cabinet). Of course there is a poll on this.

atawa · June 13, 2002, 07:45

Let the citizens come up with names, have the president select the 5 best and poll on it

Timeline · June 13, 2002, 08:06

I too, like the suggestion of cycling down through the cabinet members and letting each one name a city. Citizens can give a name to any cabinet member, and if the official chooses to ignore it, then he/she will naturally lose popularity. And also, this idea let’s everyone have some fun, instead of just one group or one person.

mordok · June 13, 2002, 09:00

Every member should name one city.

Spiffor · June 13, 2002, 09:09

I think Timeline has a good idea. It's easier cycling through cabinet members than the whole population (which would be very frustrating for the 85th member or so)...
Influencing the cabinet members is a good idea, as every active citizen can have some creativity fun.

Purple · June 13, 2002, 10:37

How do you define "active" member? Having never played in this type of game, I don't know how high the participation is, but I think giving ordinary citizens the right to name a city would increase it slightly, since it will give them a stake, albeit small, in the game.

This is a demogratic game, after all. And the cabinet members already have stuff to do without giving them another privilege.

I'm sure there will be enough members to create a name for every city. There were 95 the last time I checked. The namer could be considered a municipal official of that city, the mayor, for example.

I considered naming the cities after people, but throught that might lead to confusion if we had players and cities with the same name.

Perhaps the Minister of Nomenclature could set up a poll of ten or so city name suggestions at a time, drawn from the pool list (see my first post). The top several vote-getters would be used. Then a new poll would be set up for the next group of cities, using ten different candidates. Rinse, repeat, etc. When every name has had a chance to be voted on, they all go back into the pool, and the polling begins again. Or new suggestions could be solicited.

Moral Hazard · June 15, 2002, 08:06

I'd like to propose that we name our first city after our first president and call it Trippen.

DarkCloud · June 15, 2002, 09:15

Lets make a poll...
But first letàs consolidate our choices

Names for cities given by:

Cabinet Ministers
All Players
Historical Names
Active Members

I think are all taht's mentioned in this thread...

DarkCloud · June 15, 2002, 09:21

I'll Second that, Moral Hazard