Pretty simple question, do you approve of Private Turnchats?

Sure. Why not? The public turnchat has, for the most part, had whatever truly legal power it once had for the most part removed in favor of the forum. Private turn sessions would be less distracting for Presidents, and could occur with lesser possible incidence of turnchat attendees having undue influence over turn play.

Sure. Why not? The public turnchat has, for the most part, had whatever truly legal power it once had for the most part removed in favor of the forum. Private turn sessions would be less distracting for Presidents, and could occur with lesser possible incidence of turnchat attendees having undue influence over turn play.
excellent summary!

I disaprove the use of Private Turnchats. Doing a private turnchat would disenfranchise and alienate other citizens from actualy partisipating in the demogame. Making the turnchats into a private thing would create a new problem. It would create a small elite class of people that are alowed to the turnchat. To me that is undemocratic, if we chose to go for a private turnchat.

We should keep the turnchats open to the public and not disenfranchisng and alienating people who are interested in partisipating in the turnchats to see for themselves the play-by-play of the game.

Pretty simple, private turnchats are undemocratic.

Were telling our President that they are to play the game following a number of instructions. Although, we will not be watching you to make sure you follow those instructions, and the only log of what you've done is POSTED by you.

Congratulations, we have now reached a new level of stupidity.

The only arguement against the use of Public turnchats is that the people who partcipate have to much influence on the DP. In reality, it is the DP's choice to be influenced by these people. The turnchat gives them an oppertunity to find the general opinion of the people.

If a DP does not want to be influenced by those inside of the turnchat, then fine. However, a Public turnchat will insure that there is no foul play, period.

Pretty simple, private turnchats are undemocratic.

Were telling our President that they are to play the game following a number of instructions. Although, we will not be watching you to make sure you follow those instructions, and the only log of what you've done is POSTED by you.

Congratulations, we have now reached a new level of stupidity.

The only arguement against the use of Public turnchats is that the people who partcipate have to much influence on the DP. In reality, it is the DP's choice to be influenced by these people. The turnchat gives them an oppertunity to find the general opinion of the people.

If a DP does not want to be influenced by those inside of the turnchat, then fine. However, a Public turnchat will insure that there is no foul play, period.

Agreed, it is the DP's choice wether or not he follows the people's advice in the chatroom. It is the DP's choice, nothing more, nothing less.

If the Turnchats went to a privitzed setting (Hmm, this sounds almost like a simmilar argument with Privitized Social Security in RL ;) ). Then the DP would be more inclined to, shall we say, pull a Donsig and would only follow instructions of his or her chosing. The reason that Public Turnchats has worked so well is that we can monitor the DP's actions to ensure that he or she is following the instructions posted by our leaders. Privitation of Turnchats can lead to disatorus results that would create more PIs and CCs against the DP for simply not following instructions in the TCIT.

I disaprove the use of Private Turnchats. Doing a private turnchat would disenfranchise and alienate other citizens from actualy partisipating in the demogame. Making the turnchats into a private thing would create a new problem. It would create a small elite class of people that are alowed to the turnchat. To me that is undemocratic, if we chose to go for a private turnchat.

We should keep the turnchats open to the public and not disenfranchisng and alienating people who are interested in partisipating in the turnchats to see for themselves the play-by-play of the game.

Totally agree :goodjob:

On one side, I've never attended a turnchat and chances are, that is not heading towards a dramatic U-turn.

There are certain events (like a one move/trade etc turnchats) that do not need the entire nation to attend. In a controlled way, very short private turnchats are acceptable.

Agreed, it is the DP's choice wether or not he follows the people's advice in the chatroom. It is the DP's choice, nothing more, nothing less.

If the Turnchats went to a privitzed setting (Hmm, this sounds almost like a simmilar argument with Privitized Social Security in RL ;) ). Then the DP would be more inclined to, shall we say, pull a Donsig and would only follow instructions of his or her chosing. The reason that Public Turnchats has worked so well is that we can monitor the DP's actions to ensure that he or she is following the instructions posted by our leaders. Privitation of Turnchats can lead to disatorus results that would create more PIs and CCs against the DP for simply not following instructions in the TCIT.

So, then, what's keeping a DP from also lying during a public turnchat? It's easily accomplished in both settings.

So, then, what's keeping a DP from also lying during a public turnchat? It's easily accomplished in both settings.

Yeah, but if they do then someone will figure out somethings fishy when the DP says he did something Turn 3 or 4, and the Turn 5 save doesn't say that ;).

I've never understood why people are so suspicious of the DP. I don't think most people run for President in order to screw over the other players in the game.

I've never understood why people are so suspicious of the DP. I don't think most people run for President in order to screw over the other players in the game.

i would, just remeber never vote for me if i run for president.

I understand the flaws with chats, but better powerless aristocracy then powerles monarchy

I just remembered something, that came to me when arguing with a rival over privatization of several nationalised companies here, 'privatization and privation come from the same root'. Not necessarily relevant, but true. To make it private, privatization, will lead to privation, depriving (also deriving from the same root) the people of accountability and transparency in government.

I'm really torn on this issue. Having been President 3 terms now (one in DG5, two in DG6) I strongly believe that there should be provisions for flexibility on this issue. We should allow for offline play sessions on a case by case basis. with citizen approval, which is usually stated in the double negative "when there is no objection". On the other hand, I've been a strong defender of the chat as an institution, and cannot turn my back on that. If there were a "yes under controlled conditions" answer, that would be my choice.

I could never be the DP for the Demo game. I work away from home and only have internet access at work. At the weekends I cannot play on a computer for hours at a stretch since I haven't seen my family all week and it's not fair.

By private turnchat I though we were talking about the DP just playing his turns according to the Instruction thread and posting a log of what went on (a bit like an SG). I would agree with this, where it allows a faster turnaround and helps in specific instances where a public turnchat is not practicable.

On another note, people have no business electing prospective DP's if they don't trust them to follow the instructions.

Finally, I think that public turnchats are preferable, and would even extend them to Netmeeting or Skype or something so that Info from civAssist and screenshots could be shared live. I know people worry about security - but then they are not forced to join the session.

I'm really torn on this issue. Having been President 3 terms now (one in DG5, two in DG6) I strongly believe that there should be provisions for flexibility on this issue. We should allow for offline play sessions on a case by case basis. with citizen approval, which is usually stated in the double negative "when there is no objection". On the other hand, I've been a strong defender of the chat as an institution, and cannot turn my back on that. If there were a "yes under controlled conditions" answer, that would be my choice.
That would be my option too. There are some reasons why we could have a quick private turnchat on specific issues that would only need some things done that would make the way of the game much clearer.

This isn’t a particularly informative poll IMO. It’s much like asking whether one approves of rainy weather. No; I prefer sunny weather, but I realize that sometimes we need rain, too.

Anyway, I voted no. In general I think every effort should be made to have public turnchats. However, I think there are instances, and not uncommon ones, where expediency suggests a turnchat be private. So although I don’t necessarily “approve” of private turnchats, I am not in favor mandating that all turnchats must be public. I don’t approve of rainy days, either, but understand their necessity.

I also agree with the sentiment of those who wonder at the suspicion of the DP. For what it’s worth, I think the DP should be given more power and the ability to make more in-game decisions.

I also agree with the sentiment of those who wonder at the suspicion of the DP. For what it’s worth, I think the DP should be given more power and the ability to make more in-game decisions.

It's been there for a long time. Also, any leader can post instructions that do give the DP some leeway in making choices. Some do that, others post extremely detailed, no exceptions allowed instructions.

That's part of the interaction that makes this game interesting.

-- Ravensfire

Making the turnchats into a private thing would create a new problem. It would create a small elite class of people that are alowed to the turnchat. To me that is undemocratic, if we chose to go for a private turnchat.
This simply doesnt make sense to me...
If the presidnet is the only one at the turnset, then its not a small elite class of people, it is the entire people.

It is basically, do we want a small group of people monitoring the president or do we want everyone to have the same voice?
It is basically oligarchy vs democracy

It is basically, do we want a small group of people monitoring the president or do we want everyone to have the same voice?
It is basically oligarchy vs democracy

I want everyone to have the same voice. At the same time still have the public turnchats for people to watch the play by play stats of the game. ATM, my views are changing from having a public chat to monitor the president to having a public chat as an equivlent to watching a baseball (or what ever sport you perfer) game

I want everyone to have the same voice. At the same time still have the public turnchats for people to watch the play by play stats of the game. ATM, my views are changing from having a public chat to monitor the president to having a public chat as an equivlent to watching a baseball (or what ever sport you perfer) game
this is why i still prefer the current system. Either way is legal and the DP may choose.

There is no doubt that the chat as a social event is more important than as a way to watch the DP for questionable behaviour. We have some really good discussions in there, both in game and out. Too bad we didn't go with the idea for a set of elected DPs, as there would be more chances to have chats at more socially friendly times.

There is no doubt that the chat as a social event is more important than as a way to watch the DP for questionable behaviour. We have some really good discussions in there, both in game and out. Too bad we didn't go with the idea for a set of elected DPs, as there would be more chances to have chats at more socially friendly times.
and times when there is a reliable connection (hint hint at Comcast's unreliable routers)