Request for a Constitutional Convention update.

UnOrthOdOx · September 24, 2002, 21:25

Are we making progress? Guys?

WhiteBandit · September 24, 2002, 21:40

Hah! I think we should hold a chat at some point about this. Announce it quite awhile in advance, but go on IRC or someplace and we could moderate it (and have questions passed through a mediator). This would be a great way to quickly get information and debate topics.

If we're interested, I wouldn't mind helping in setting up and scheduling something like this.

notyoueither · September 24, 2002, 23:36

Working...

notyoueither · September 25, 2002, 00:24

Speaking of which, it's time to start that thread...

Togas · September 25, 2002, 00:26

It's taking time. We're still haggling over major issues. I have no idea how this thing would be done in the real world with lots of people.

It's going much slower than I had expected. I couldn't even begin to estimate when we might have a draft ready. We have a lot of compromising and arguing left to do.

--Togas

WhiteBandit · September 25, 2002, 02:29

That's perfectly fine and understandable. We just want a simple status report

Thanks for letting us know.

Aro · September 25, 2002, 08:15

IMHO, the Col (that we have now) has a lack about the citizens; it's all about the official branches. However, I've seen people playing ahead (new people in the game) because they don't know exactly what that means.
!'m asking, respectfully, for an article or something about this.

kring · September 29, 2002, 14:55

I have also seen old people playing ahead indirectly.

By that, I mean they used an earlier game to test a theory about cutting a road. To me, that is playing ahead since the knowledge gained was used to cut the road later in the game.

Arnelos · September 29, 2002, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
I have also seen old people playing ahead indirectly.

By that, I mean they used an earlier game to test a theory about cutting a road. To me, that is playing ahead since the knowledge gained was used to cut the road later in the game.

That specific case is one where I'd have to disagree (though I agree that it NEEDS to be clarified). In that case, it's really something that Firaxis *should* have made more clear to the player when they made the game. One of those things the AI knows instinctively and we had to test (and it turns out the Firaxis AI was breaking the rules as we thought we knew them).

kring · September 29, 2002, 15:20

Just because the game may or may not have cheated doesn't make it right for us to cheat. Two WRONGS don't make one RIGHT.

I have a theory on that, but to test it would require a similar tactic as was used, and so I won't test it out.

And that was still playing ahead (even though an earlier game was used), regardless of whether or not the AI did or did not cheat.

notyoueither · September 29, 2002, 15:44

Building roads?

Why not use the editor and start a game to test?

kring · September 29, 2002, 16:08

nye, if you were referring to my comment: The theory isn't about building roads; it is about how Persia could trade without the AI cheating.

In order for me test it, I would have to actually use one of the earlier saved games and do a few things. To me, that would be playing ahead, because of the knowledge I would gain about Persia by doing so is knowledge that we currently don't have. I could always wait to see if Persia is obilerated, then any knowledge gained about Persia would be useless. But, even that might be considered playing ahead.

notyoueither · September 29, 2002, 16:28

Ahh, yes. Knowledge of our neighbours that we could not have without doing things different from the way they were done in the 'real' game.

That should be a no-no.

kring · September 29, 2002, 16:45

And, that was what happened in the instance I mentioned. It was done innocently enough, but the result was the knowledge was used in the game itself.