Sadly, I don't think there's any way I could prove it. I'm pretty sure I bought the game off the shelf at a Software Etc or some such and the original game box is long gone at this point. I remember buying OS2/Warp just for that game. That's the only thing I ever used it for, though it was worth it. Many a hour were lost to that, um, we'll call it GalCiv Classic since GalCiv I is actually the 2nd iteration.

I don't remember doing any bearomancy...

Hey, watch it -- I think that was covered by NDA!  ./sicks the Zolice and Yops on Annie!

When he just got it he made a post on the forums wondering how long it'd take you to notice that he ripped it off of yours

Nah-uh!

I haven't seen a statement either way and sort of figured it would be under NDA, but you make a good point about the plans being in flux thanks to Demigod. Thanks.

(sings) I've got a golden ticket (chorus) He's got a golden ticket.... break out the Wonka bars...

Anyway, I would like to see a focused itemised testing list, an organised bug list and general system issues one as well time requirement expectations for the alpha. I would also like to see the selected people broken down into specific teams with weekly objectives. This is so so SD can get the maximum development benefit from the course of action at hand for the commuity. 

With that said the great Frogboy has spoken! 

I recall we once had a similar discussion

Oh yea, forgot about that! I had that one too. I remember flying my little TV advertising things around trying to dominate areas of the map .  Being RTS-ish, it wasn't really quite my game, but it was fun for a while.

Now we see the nerds coming out....

Sounds like maybe this hasn't happened yet even for an 'alpha.' I had some quiet hopes for similar things during the GC2 DA and TA betas. This makes me think my vague suspicion that invited-alpha status meant access to a formal bug tracking database is misguided.

I've helped to herd bugs on some comparatively simple training software (mostly back in the ancient 20th-century days). I wouldn't want to do that for a system open to a group like "anyone who pre-ordered," but maybe it would be more useful than bothersome for a limited set of external testers. Anyway, if Stardock haven't done at least basic test plans for volunteer efforts, it might be time to try the idea out. Maybe it's too big a hassle (too much internal work, too much 'bad' influence on testers, etc.), or maybe it pays off well...

As much as I support that because it makes for better testing, having 76 lottery-picked folks is no guarantee of success. A more strict QA-like system would work wonders for an entirely hand-picked team because presumably SD would pick the people they knew would take it seriously. But when you have that many more randomly-picked people than hand-picked, it's more of a coin toss on how it'd go

Please clarify the pronoun reference here. What is "that?"

Spartan's bit we both quoted, and your pitch for trying it for Elemental

I half-thought that, except Spartan said notning about a bug database.

But now I'm a bit lost about why you went from having a test plan to talking about how the volunteer testing pool is selected. Wouldn't it be useful to have a plan even if only a minority of the random volunteers were likely to take it seriously? I can easily see why you might want to abandon team selection within the total pool, but what's the harm with having a plan and some form of semi-methodical 'issue' tracking for the effort. Seems to me that even if 40 out of 76 people don't manage to 'get with the program,' the remaining 26 would still be free labor that at least roughly approximates the work you'd get from paid staff.

Well, he did say an "organized bug list"

As for the plan - it does take effort to set up, and it requires much more frequent and detailed communication between the testers and the dev team. And if they're going to do that, why would they gamble on how many people would be actively involved in the plan? The most sensible thing to do in such a case it to just hand-pick everyone that you know is going to be with it. It's true that those who don't might still be beneficial to the test, but then that's what the later betas will be for.