Way to Name Cities

Jon Shafer · June 17, 2002, 21:26

Okay, I've come up with another few proposals regarding this issue.

Question:
How should we name cities?

Options:
Joining Order: A simple run-down of the list. The person whose turn it is may either suggest a name for a city to take the place of his name, or an alteration of his name. I will PM each person 10 cities in advance in hope of getting a response in time. If he doesn't respond, then the name of the city will be exactly his name.
Random: Completely random. I will create a program to pick a number between 1 and the number of people joined at that point (108 is it now?), and whoever's number that is gets to pick the name (or his own if he doesn't respond) (No, I won't cheat either, geeze). I will establish the # order 10 cities in advance, so as that I can PM that person and hope to get a response in time before the creation of the city.
Other: Any other meathod (very broad).

Expiration:
3 Days

Switch · June 17, 2002, 21:31

I say Other: Joining Order, except with the exception of inactive members, and with allowances for special occasions (e.g., the production of the Great Library, or a victory in a great battle, etc.).
It would be unfair for people who say they're in but don't comment to get their own city.

Jon Shafer · June 17, 2002, 21:32

I'm going to hold my vote now, I'm not sure yet what I want to pick. I'm #33, which is pretty far back, so I don't know if I really want to do Joining-Order... but Random could plant me a long ways away also. Hmmm...

notyoueither · June 17, 2002, 22:10

Random. I'm no. 14 on the list, but I merit no more consideration than no. 100.

The Prez could PM 10 or 20 people at a time. City names go in order of when he receives responses. Ties up all the loose ends.

Cyclotron · June 17, 2002, 22:20

Joinging order. I'm near the top.

Apocalypse · June 17, 2002, 22:25

Even though I'm at the bottom, I'd go with joining order if it excludes inactive members.

jdd2007 · June 17, 2002, 22:26

it should be other: the ministers and presidents should get the first cities and then everyone else, in joining order.

Jon Shafer · June 17, 2002, 22:27

3 to 3 to 3. Oh boy.

Sorry about the lack of options guys, I just didn't see many alternatives. The 'other' option is for those who want anything besides the 2 listed, included Cabinet positions first, then everyone else.

kring · June 18, 2002, 00:22

It is now 5 4 5.

Isn't this the third post for this issue? Or did I count the first one twice?

Will we ever resolve this issue? What was wrong with the earlier polls on this issue?

Jon Shafer · June 18, 2002, 00:24

The earlier polls had options based upon "historical names", etc. It was a resounding vote for people to choose the names by one way or another, so I made this as a final poll (unless other wins, which it may... THEN what...).

Kingof the Apes · June 18, 2002, 00:40

I voted other; I think ministers should have cities named after them first. Then the cities for battles wonders etc. and random names after the 'priority' names have been used.

Space05us · June 18, 2002, 00:58

joining order

Eli · June 18, 2002, 05:12

They way it looks now, we're gonna have one city for a loooong looong time.

MrWhereItsAt · June 18, 2002, 05:27

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Joinging order. I'm near the top.

I AM the top.

How many cities can we expect to build in an Emperor game with our world settings? If we have 60+ members - that's a helluva lot who don't get a city named after them. Preference should definitely be given to those who signed up and are sticking around for the long haul. Maybe the Council should be immortalized first...?

But since that's not an option I'll vote for MrWIAville as our first chosen name!

disorganizer · June 18, 2002, 05:56

Other:
* Let the officials name first.
* If some citizens can be awarded with honours which are acompanied by allowance to name a city
* Then, random from citizens online in chat at moment of naming

the question is:
do we rename captured cities? i would say no. we are a great culture and dont have to crush on other cultures by denying their origins.
this would lead us to the questions: how many cities will we be able to build ourselves? i think not that many.
we could start with the president, then the ministers, then some other officials (department-members, publisher of news etc.). after this, we randomly select a citizen from the citizens which are in the chat at the moment of naming the city ;-)

MrWhereItsAt · June 18, 2002, 06:11

Quote:

Originally posted by disorganizer

we could start with the president, then the ministers, then some other officials (department-members, publisher of news etc.). after this, we randomly select a citizen from the citizens which are in the chat at the moment of naming the city ;-)

I kinda agree with what you say here, but it's highly unfair on those of us who can't be at the turnchat - I have commitments at 8am (2000gmt)!!!

We can't restrict names to those who can be here at a certain time - it must be for those who contribute most.

disorganizer · June 18, 2002, 06:13

thats why we first could give it to officials and citizens which did something positive for the nation (as a kind of honour).
we could vote each week for the next non-chat citizen to be allowed naming or something like that.
i believe attending the chat as something special a citizen can do for our nation. thats why i put this in.

MrWhereItsAt · June 18, 2002, 06:44

As long as contributions are the main criteria for choosing posters after whom to name cities. Why should someone who posts 70-80 (releveant, maybe helpful) posts per week and can't attend the chat count less than someone who is in the chat for 40-oddmins and does little else?

civman2000 · June 18, 2002, 08:05

random. I'm #2 but as NYE said, that doenst make me more worthy...If you could bias you're random number generator towards active people and even more towards ministers, that would be better.

Spiffor · June 18, 2002, 09:02

Giving the naming power to those who are in the chat is a very bad idea. However, giving the naming ability to a random person, through a randomizer is a good thing. There was a kind of inequality when people joined (hey, people online then were the first to join). A random raffle is the way to make everybody equal.

hetairoi22 · June 18, 2002, 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by jdd2007
it should be other: the ministers and presidents should get the first cities and then everyone else, in joining order.

I agree with this, but I want it combined with Apocolypse's idea: inactive players should not have cities named after them.

Apocalypse · June 18, 2002, 10:08

Cities should even be renamed if some who has a city named after them screws up the game in some way or another. Or if there is ever a horrible president and we wish to rid ourselves of that person completely when they leave office.

disorganizer · June 18, 2002, 10:18

so could we do a post-ranking each week? then we have a new naming order (all who already named a city are not allowed in this list).
every citizen could propose a name in advance. if they are chosen, the next city is named after their proposal.
also, for special awards, a second naming chance could be there.

jdd2007 · June 18, 2002, 11:04

someone said that we probably couldnt build enough cities for everyone. definitely not. no way were going to build 108+ cities

idea: name regions or great battles after people.

i think a post-ranking system would be too much. however, we cant be naming cities after people inactive on this forum.

Vlad Antlerkov · June 18, 2002, 11:45

Random order, though I'd be fine if it were done down the list in terms of joining order (so long as players not active within the past week are cut).

Then again, in mid-July, I'll be away for a week. So... maybe not.

Jon Shafer · June 18, 2002, 12:24

Let me give a quick demo of what a random order might be like (and don't even try to use these as official if random wins):

Which would mean that the first people to choose would be:

TrueLight
Captain
Jonny
delsolsi
Fatwreck
-=MordeN=-
civman2000
Buster13
ThePlagueRat

Okay, so I forgot a number, I'll change it already.

Jon Shafer · June 18, 2002, 20:41

Okay, this poll is too close to let it slide off the first page (and pretty important), so I'm bumping it back to the top again.

Kuciwalker · June 18, 2002, 20:52

Joining order, but skip any inactive members.

Proserpine · June 19, 2002, 07:05

I prefer joining order (and I'm waaay down the list), but as others have said inactive members should be excluded.

Also if ministers have priority - whatever the principal method - it is obvious I think that they should be excluded if their number comes up later in the normal course of running through the list.

disorganizer · June 19, 2002, 07:18

I also propose honoured citizens to get priority in naming the next item (see "do we need a honour system" thread). If we award someone with a medal, he should also be priorized even over the ministers/president to name something.
I also second any1 who already named something is excluded from the random-process.
Nobody should be allowed to name 2 things. (Well, we still have to decide about landmarks. Are landmarks named according to naming-scheme or by someone?)