A.) I've always felt turnchats should remain a part of the demogame for several reasons.

It allows for an additional record of what happened during a play session, through the chat log.
It also give people a chance to watch the game unfold as it is played, adding chances for citizen participation.

B.) I feel like a Calender based term is optimum, it makes the terms fairly perdictable. You don't like the variation from Month to Month? Go with the 5 week suggestion. I don't like the idea of turn based terms since it's much less predictable, and I really don't think you can or should hold a DP to X turns per week.
Donsig, you say "real civs can't slow time" well, real civs can stop to discuss what to do when something big happens. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor Congress discussed it and declared war in return. While real civs can't slow time they can discuss events as they are playing out.


EDIT:
C.) And Turnchat Reps were abolished?!?! I think turnchat reps are an essential mechanism, even if it is just via the Deputy. Fact of the matter I became the Military leader in Civ III DG1 Term 2 BECAUSE I was a chat rep Term 1 (I wasn't even an actual deputy) and I did such a good job.

C.) And Turnchat Reps were abolished?!?! I think turnchat reps are an essential mechanism, even if it is just via the Deputy. Fact of the matter I became the Military leader in Civ III DG1 Term 2 BECAUSE I was a chat rep Term 1 (I wasn't even an actual deputy) and I did such a good job.

I got into the DG by virtue of attending the early chats in DG3 as a simple citizen. I had to find out what IRC was, to tell the truth. Chats were a social event which happened to be driven by playing of turns. Being an active participant in the game actually counted for something then, you could speak up and people would listen, and do what you suggested. We didn't need to have rigid instructions which accounted for every possibility because the decision makers were there at the chat.

Then a very small but very vocal minority essentially destroyed the chat because it "isn't fair to people who can only look at the forum." :rolleyes: What those people can't seem to understand is that the decline of the game parallels the decline of the chat -- killing the chat was a primary reason for participation to dwindle because a lot of people found out the game wasn't fun any more. :mad:

I would now like to paraphrase a quote of myself: If the majority does something a citizen doesn't like, I'd rather that citizen just walk away instead of trying to take away the majority's fun.

Fine by me - and honestly, I think'll help move the game along faster. Rather than having to stop a turnchat when the DP is confused by an instruction/cannot proceed because of a lack of instructions, if the official is right there with him, he can simply instruct the DP right there!

How is giving an instruction in a turnchat thread and in the turnchat itself any different?!

I also am in favor of turnchats. I came into the game pretty much when Strider left (remember that because him and cheiftess, and the dp were the only ones attending the turnchat, and that was my first.) I think we really have to encourage people to attend turnchats. Obviously you can't make it mandatory, but let's say if you can't go, your deputy might represent you. Which also brings us back to the other point of deputies.

In regards to turn based terms, I am completely opposed. The ISDG was really appealing. I tried to get into it, but the turn based turns really bored me. They were probably one of the main reasons I never became active.

My issue with instructions via the chat is that we have had officials post the instructions "Will be given at chat". Sounds nice, eh? Expect that the VAST majority of citizens do not attend the chats, and that means our voice is lost. We don't get the opportunity to review and comment on the instructions.

If there is a strong desire from most citizens to allow instructions in the chat, please, please, please limit that power to some extent. Require that instructions must be posted in the TCIT. Require that any major and significant changes be made in the forums.

This is NOT a chat game - it's a forum game.

-- Ravensfire

I'll agree officials should never post instructions "Will be given at chat."

And such laziness shouldn't be tolerated. Instructions should be posted at least a day ahead of time as well to ensure people can see the instructions before the turns are played.

But, the turn chats are important, it allows officials to clarify their instructions if neccisary, and respond to minor things that come up, ie. in the middle of a war we find 1 lone soldier we didn't expect pillaging improvements.
Which unit do we send to take it out? do we take it out from a city or take a unit from the front. These don't really require halting a turn session to go to the forums, and there's no harm in getting the input of people in attendance on such decisions, especially if the official is there.

However anything that could be planned ahead of time should be. And anything MAJOR that comes up should require an end of the turn chat and taking discussion back to the forums. Because a game session should not be stopped for minor things to keep movement going, but NEEDS to be stopped for moderate and major decisions because you need all citizens to participate.

Now we might want to clarify what a counts as a turnchat stopping event. (ie. new declaration of war, sacking of a city, new civilization discovered).

Instructions should include anything citizens can think of. Instructions that are simply "Instructions will be given in chat" means the Deputy is the new Secretary, at the very least for that play session.

Only problem with that I forsee though is officials posting "vague" instructions with the intent of giving "detailed" instructions during the chat, thus circumventing the forums. And determining when a official is doing that, or just doesn't have much they need done is not easy to determine fairly.

Though ravensfire I must agree...

"This is NOT a chat game"

This is a forum game, with chat sessions.

To increase participation you must increase the avenues for participation and for people to follow along. Getting rid of ways people can participate (ie. watching turn chats) doesn't help overall participation. Nor does preventing people who wish to watch as each turn plays out from doing so.

Turn chats are ESSENTIAL to the demogame in my opinion. But I agree any resulting laziness with instructions should not be tolerated.

Well, in my case Ive never seen those types of instructions, but in any even they should not be tolerated. Officials must post all their instructions, incase something comes up and they can not attend. But, turnchats could really help the game.

I would only be fine if nothing is decided at a chat. If the DP isn't sure on which city to attack, he should decide himself with the instruction set or send it back to the forum, he should NOT ask for advice in the chat. This gives people that go to chats more voice than those that do not. Instructions should be posted a minimum of 2-3 hours before a chat, and nothing can be changed after that for any reason at all.

Chats should be a social event, but not a decision making body.

I would only be fine if nothing is decided at a chat. If the DP isn't sure on which city to attack, he should decide himself with the instruction set or send it back to the forum, he should NOT ask for advice in the chat. This gives people that go to chats more voice than those that do not. Instructions should be posted a minimum of 2-3 hours before a chat, and nothing can be changed after that for any reason at all.

Chats should be a social event, but not a decision making body.
What about if he asks the Military Adviser as to which city to attack. It is in the advisor's realm of duties. I don't think the citizens in the turnchat should influence any dp decision, but I certainly think he/she should be allowed to accept instructions for unpredicted events from the corresponding officials.

I have always said that I prefer multiple people making a decision to one person making a decision. If the DP and Military Advisor are in the chat, and there are choices to be made regarding which units to use first, I would rather have them discuss it and play. If 10 other citizens happen to be there, then all 12 of them should discuss it.

I think it comes down to whether you elect people to do the job, or to babysit polls. If you want people to do the job, then let them do the job, no matter what form it takes. They still can't go against the people's will, if such will is known.

Should it be abused by a generic "instructions given at chat?" Of course not, generally speaking. But should we condemn our DP to making bad decisions solo when the expert is there? Should we go through a bunch of 1 turn chats because something different like a new contact comes up each time? No, it worked good when we had minor instructions in the chat, and it sucks to be DP now with nobody there.

If anyone other than donsig can bring up an incident where at-chat instructions caused problems in-game, I'm willing to listen and help make sure we limit actual problems. I'm not interested in the chicken little argument.

If the DP isn't sure on which city to attack, he should decide himself with the instruction set or send it back to the forum, he should NOT ask for advice in the chat. This gives people that go to chats more voice than those that do not.

I'll start my reply with observations on two real-world forays into "politics". The past couple of months I've taken opportunities to personally participate in local government type issues. The first time was a zoning and planning commission meeting on whether to approve 100 condo units right across the street from a planned new school. I, along with about 100 other local residents, appeared at the "chat" on the topic (the public commission meeting), to give our opinion on the propopsed zoning change. Let me ask you this, do you think our input got more consideration than the people who stayed at home? If it were you, would you want your opinion to get some weight because you took the trouble to actually show up, even though it meant breaking into your busy schedule?

The second chance to participate was a meeting on the topic of school attendence boundaries, between the existing schools and the new ones. Again, around 100 parents showed up at the "chat", and we all took our opportunity to say what we thought about the new boundaries. The new school planning committee cancelled their presentation to the school board so the new boundaries could be drawn with our input having been considered. I sure as heck feel like my voice counted for more because again I rearranged my schedule to show up.

So, simply put, in life your opinion counts for more if you get involved than it does if you don't. You can be a faceless number among tens of thousands on an election tally, or one of thousands of letter writers, or one of 100 who show up at a meeting, or one of dozens who serve on volunteer committees and run for office. The more you put into it, the more weight your opinion has, and that's the way it should be!

Moving back to the DemoGame, participation is never equal, nor are all participants truly equal. Sure, there is equality in voting, with respect to one's own vote, but even that isn't real equality because the factor of influence is not considered when looking at a single vote. An independing thinking but passive individual voter casts his or her vote, and it counts as 1 vote same as everyone else. An active participant who campaigns one way has his 1 vote but influences undecideds to also vote his way. It is inevitable that the active participant's voice counts for more than the passive individualist.

Now that equal voice within the forum is debunked as a fallacy, let's attack the impact of advice given in the chat. A DP does not need to ask for advice, the active chat participant will freely give it, continuously. The only way to avoid advice to the DP is to silence the participant, which eliminates the social aspect and wipes out the purpose of the chat in the first place. Therefore we need a counterbalance to active, unofficial voices in the chat. There have been three traditional ways to balance chat input -- allowing officials to give in-chat instructions, having very rigid pre-chat instructions, and votes during the chat.

Here are my personal observations on being active in the game continuously since the 2nd week of DG3 Term 1. I have participated in some way every term since then, and to my knowledge no other citizen has equalled that longevity. Everyone else has taken a hiatus of some kind, even Chieftess, donsig, CivGeneral, and Strider.

Rigid instructions result in
shortened chats missed opportunities such as ganga deals on trades a DP position which is less fun due to inability to optimize play official positions which are less fun because of having to foresee everything and write very precise language


In-chat instructions result in
the possibility of lazy officials not writing instructions or deliberately leaving them vague a fraction of the people having a chance to comment (mitigated because they're usually the ones who can comment are typically the "best" ones to comment based on participation levels)
Big improvements in the quality of play, and overall fun


In-chat votes result in
The most even decision making in chat because everyone is counted Rewards participation and encourages more attendence, thus more social interaction, more fun, and a better game

I can think of one incident the chat has "caused problems" and that's when myself and Donsig (separate occasions) were "sued" because some people felt we over stepped our bounds in chat. But this could also have occurred without the chat system.

Another thing with in-chat instructions, is there are other people there to find the forum precedents for decisions. Not sure what to do as DP for a minor decision, but remember seeing a thread on it? Someone in chat is often more them happy to to find the thread for you and post the link in chat.

In fact this helps give MORE power to those in the forums as the DP isn't "guessing" what to do if something goes beyond the instruction thread or frantically searching for the related thread while trying to play the game.

One problem I've got with turnchats is that they're in American timezones most of the time, so that's like midnight for me. I wouldn't be able to make the turnchats, and in turnchat-based decission making, I wouldn't have the opportunity to be there.

So IMO guidelines for the DP should be posted, and then the chat can decide how to exactly fill in these guidelines.

So IMO guidelines for the DP should be posted, and then the chat can decide how to exactly fill in these guidelines.

That's kinda how I've always seen the turn chats as (or at least the ones in the early days). The people at the chat just elaborate on the general instructions, within limits of course.

The question in my mind though is IF and HOW those limits should be legally stated. It's hard to pin down those sorts of general limitations.

I understand the whole Timezone thing, many of our most active users are not in the US (even though the majority of overall users are). We need to make sure the implication of turnchats will not interfere with people's ability to participate. Honestly I still feel like the Civ 3 DG1 model was the best one I've seen in action.

DaveShack, this is where we disagree, I believe this is a forum based game not a chat based game. If people who go to chats are able to vote on decisions, this is not a forum based game, if this were possible, I am not sure I would want to heavily participate in discussions since my voice can be disregarded.

You saying we should end the game session everytime there's a decision such as, "should I attack with the Knight with City Attack or Mobility?"

And if the DP is the the only one responcible for making such minor decisions while playing the save, what's the difference between that and getting input from those available at the time? In the end it is the DP's decision, so long as it doesn't violate precedents set in the forums. Any chat votes that are conducted should not be "legally binding" they are informational only, a DP could theoretically reject a chat vote with no reprecusions. Also, why shouldn't an official who is present voice his opinion on such matters?

In ever demogame I've played (all with turnchats) the Forums were the end all to all decisions. If a player in a turn chat found a forum link which established stated "do this or that" the DP was obligated to do that.

Fact of the matter, odds are I won't be able to attend most turn chats in upcoming demogames, however I'm still very pro-turnchat. I have no fear my voice in the forums will be discarded as you fear because the forums are still the ultimate athority on any decisions. And those few decisions made in the turn chat must be minor only. Anything serious must result in the end of the turn chat and a return to the forums to wait for future discussions.

Regardless I feel like turnchats are essential and must be included, so let's focus on exactly WHAT limitations must be put on turn chats.

Okay preliminary Turnchat Guidelines.



Turn Chats

Turnchats are sessions held in the Demogame chatroom where the Designated Player plays the save. While playing the DP will report on events and his actions as they play out.

Unless deemed necessary by chatroom moderators to enforce order in the chatroom, citizens who attend the turnchat will be allowed to voice their opinions as the game plays out.

Actions during the turnchat MAY NOT violate any forum decision/poll.

Any major events shall result in the end of the turnchat unless superceded by a decision in the forums.

Examples of Major Events include...
- Another civilization declaring war on us
- Discovering Another civilization
- insert various other theoretical scenarios here

Examples of a superceding decision in the Forums
- A forum decision not to end the turn chat after discovering each new civilization but only if 3 civilizations are discovered in one turnchat in order to prevent slowing of the game.

The DP can also call to stop the game and return to the forums if he feels there are significant advantages to doing so, such as numerous trade opertunities are available without proper forum instructions.

Decisions can be made during the turn chat may only regard minor details of play, such as which specific unit in a stack to use to attack a city, first, second, etc. If anything more major is required discussion shall return to the forums for further review.


Turnchat Instructions
Turnchat Instructions most be posted in the forums at least 24 hours before a Turnchat to allow some public review. Officials MAY NOT post vague instructions with the intent of giving them during the turn chat. Instructions must be detailed enough that should the official be absent the DP would be able to play through the save without major problems.

It is the Secretary's responcibility to announce if they are unable to post Instructions and it is the Deputy's responcibility to post when the Secretary is unable to. If neither is able to post instructions, it is their responcibility to designate someone else who can post instructions on their behalf.

Public Turnchat Votes - assuming we even allow these
Turnchat Votes - These votes are purely informational, requested by the DP to help them make the MINOR decisions necessary during a chat. These votes are NOT legally binding as they do not represent the will of the citizenry as a whole. The DP may disregard the result of any vote if they choose, or if the result clashes with decisions made in the forums.


Okay now add clarifiers as to what defines Major and Minor decisions, and tear it apart, but let's get some practical progress on this thing. I honestly feel like we're going around in circles between those who feel like Turnchats are essential and those who fear turnchats might reduce the power of the forums.

So let's build a turn chat which is practical, fun, and won't allow people to circumvent the forums!!!

I will be asking the mods to move all the chat related posts from the election thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193538) to this one.

I disagree, what if a nation asks us to stop trading with a certain civ. If your really playing a good civ game, you dont go on your first instinct to deny the request. Many a times I find it extremely beneficial to stop trading. This is also not something you can deny and go back to later, without repercussions. Diplomatically you lose -1 with the requesting civ. You cant save the game either with the diplo screen open. I think that the Foreign Adviser if present should decide and allow input from citizens. If the Adviser is absent from turnchat then the citizens who took time out of their schedule to attend should be able to vote and discuss such an unexpected decision.

DaveShack, this is where we disagree, I believe this is a forum based game not a chat based game. If people who go to chats are able to vote on decisions, this is not a forum based game, if this were possible, I am not sure I would want to heavily participate in discussions since my voice can be disregarded.

No, what you say in the forum can not be disregarded. The reason we need flexibility is because of the things you don't say. I've been DP a lot, and at some times up to 50% of in-game activity, some of it important stuff, gets no discussion even when officials go begging to the citizens for their input.

There is a simple cure for the perceived ills of chat decisions, and that is to be active as citizens and make the decisions in the forum.

I disagree, what if a nation asks us to stop trading with a certain civ.

Yes, there are more unsolicited questions in Civ4 than ever, and every one of them has pluses and minuses. If you deny the request you upset the one asking, and if you agree with the request you upset the one you're trading with.

We should be prepared for this type of question. If we're not prepared, I as DP would prefer to get some input over making a solo decision. If I'm not DP but got up at 6AM to attend a chat, you can bet I'll want to quickly load up the latest posted save and check back what the diplomatic situation was, and give my input.

I disagree, what if a nation asks us to stop trading with a certain civ. If your really playing a good civ game, you dont go on your first instinct to deny the request. Many a times I find it extremely beneficial to stop trading. This is also not something you can deny and go back to later, without repercussions. Diplomatically you lose -1 with the requesting civ. You cant save the game either with the diplo screen open. I think that the Foreign Adviser if present should decide and allow input from citizens. If the Adviser is absent from turnchat then the citizens who took time out of their schedule to attend should be able to vote and discuss such an unexpected decision.

To a certain extent some of these things can be handled in the forums.

However, practically speaking you can't anticipate everything the game forces you to decide right then and there. And as Ice suggests this is one reason why turnchats are valuable.

Would you rather a DP go with his instinct and find out later there was something he missed when he made that decision. Or would you rather the DP ask the people who are available for advice, so that they can point out the thread he missed, or point out the strategic implication he missed.

"Rome Demands you stop Trading with China!"
"Okay, public polls show China is low on our favorite list, and we want to stay friendly with Ceaser, so sure we'll stop"
~agree~
"You have lost your sole source of Iron"
"WHAT!?!?!"

This may be an extreme scenario, but fact of the matter is it's easy to miss a single post or forget a single fact when making such decisions. And a Foreign Advisor can't include all possible demands in their instructions.

Gonna have an instruction for every leader, ever tech, ever amount of gold, every "stop trading with" scenario?

You can try but I doubt you could cover them all and still enjoy the job.


Also, any comments on my "preliminary turnchat guidlines"? I guess the clarification for details on "Un-pausable game events" might be in order, though honestly I think they're fairly well covered in the current draft.

Also, I think we need to discuss who is in charge of the chatroom (are moderators operators? And the President/DP too?) as well as write up a document (either here or via Google Docs) that we can post to help explain how to get the chat, some basic commands, and how turnchats work in general.

I would see that the Mods, Presidents, and the DP would be operators in the Chatroom.

Operators??? We definetly need a guide for this :p.

This was taken from my preliminary guide lines in the previous thread. Added a Section on Ops.


Turn Chats

Turnchats are sessions held in the Demogame chatroom where the Designated Player plays the save. While playing the DP will report on events and his actions as they play out.

Operators
CFC Moderators shall have Operator privileges in the Demogame Chat room.

Elected officials, primarily the DP, shall be given Half-Op privileges to help enforce order in the Chat Room.

Unless deemed necessary by chatroom operators to enforce order in the chatroom, citizens who attend the turnchat will be allowed to voice their opinions as the game plays out.


In Chat Actions/Decisions
Actions during the turnchat MAY NOT violate any forum decision/poll.

Any major events shall result in the end of the turnchat unless superceded by a decision in the forums.

Examples of Major Events include...
- Another civilization declaring war on us
- Discovering Another civilization
- insert various other theoretical scenarios here

Examples of a superceding decision in the Forums
- A forum decision not to end the turn chat after discovering each new civilization but only if 3 civilizations are discovered in one turnchat in order to prevent slowing of the game.

The DP can also call to stop the game and return to the forums if he feels there are significant advantages to doing so, such as numerous trade opertunities are available without proper forum instructions.

Decisions can be made during the turn chat may only regard minor details of play, such as which specific unit in a stack to use to attack a city, first, second, etc. If anything more major is required discussion shall return to the forums for further review.


Turnchat Instructions
Turnchat Instructions most be posted in the forums at least 24 hours before a Turnchat to allow some public review. Officials MAY NOT post vague instructions with the intent of giving them during the turn chat. Instructions must be detailed enough that should the official be absent the DP would be able to play through the save without major problems.

It is the Secretary's responcibility to announce if they are unable to post Instructions and it is the Deputy's responcibility to post when the Secretary is unable to. If neither is able to post instructions, it is their responcibility to designate someone else who can post instructions on their behalf.

The President should post the Turnchat thread about 4 days before the planned turnchat to give leaders a place to post instructions and to announce the time of the turnchat.

Public Turnchat Votes - assuming we even allow these
Turnchat Votes - These votes are purely informational, requested by the DP to help them make the MINOR decisions necessary during a chat. These votes are NOT legally binding as they do not represent the will of the citizenry as a whole. The DP may disregard the result of any vote if they choose, or if the result clashes with decisions made in the forums.

I will be asking the mods to move all the chat related posts from the election thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193538) to this one.What postnumbers do you want transferred ?

What postnumbers do you want transferred ?

24 - end of thread (currently 44). TIA :)

Sounds good Falcon, one thing that could be nice is having the officials post their instructions in their own thread if the turnchat thread isn't up yet, so they won't forget, and people can discuss earlier.

@Rik, nice avatar+title :p

Cut, pasted and moved. :salute

@DF: It should be "Je zult met de roe krijgen" - but that didn't fit. :gripe:

Sounds good Falcon, one thing that could be nice is having the officials post their instructions in their own thread if the turnchat thread isn't up yet, so they won't forget, and people can discuss earlier.


Not a bad Idea, though I feel that shouldn't really happen, turnchat threads should be up well in advance. But if they aren't I agree instructions should be posted somewhere, such as their own thread, if the turnchat thread is not up.

EDIT: WOOT!! Now I'm the thread starter!

EDIT: WOOT!! Now I'm the thread starter!

Yay, part of my plan to firmly reattach you to the game is working. :cool:

Yay, part of my plan to firmly reattach you to the game is working. :cool:

It's a conspiracy man.... a conspiracy I tell ya.....

Anyway, I added a section on the last "draft" which states that a turnchat tread must be started 4 days before the planned turnchat (in italics near the bottom).

After writing that down, I think we need a section on how often the turn chats are so someone can't just delay and say "not planning on doing the chat for four more days so I'm on time." Even if the turnchat was originally planned that day.

Also, trying not to be too restrictive in the language. We need guidelines which needs to be followed, but people shouldn't be punished for unplanned RL restrictions, or be punished for very minor violations (ie. 1 hour late).

I would now like to paraphrase a quote of myself: If the majority does something a citizen doesn't like, I'd rather that citizen just walk away instead of trying to take away the majority's fun.


I know to whom this is directed, but it is still a terrible thing to say. It flies in the face of everything the Democracy Game was supposed to be about.

Chats will never work properly because the majority of the populace will not have time to devote 3 hours twice a week (typical chat length and cycle). Either that or they will not wish to sit through immature postings of camel spit (or whatever) while waiting for the DP to post every 2-3 minutes. Not to mention the folly of giving too much power to an unelected, unaccountable member of the DP Pool. And don't worry, you can still count on the occasional chat ambush from the undesirables in the minority when they can make the time to walk into the meeting of "those that matter and care" to voice their opinions.

If the majority prefers a social gathering over a game of simulated government, then have fun, kids. Good thing for me that I had already taken your quoted advice before I even read it. ;)

DZ keeps walkin'........

Chats will never work properly because the majority of the populace will not have time to devote 3 hours twice a week (typical chat length and cycle). Either that or they will not wish to sit through immature postings of camel spit (or whatever) while waiting for the DP to post every 2-3 minutes. Not to mention the folly of giving too much power to an unelected, unaccountable member of the DP Pool. And don't worry, you can still count on the occasional chat ambush from the undesirables in the minority when they can make the time to walk into the meeting of "those that matter and care" to voice their opinions.

If the majority prefers a social gathering over a game of simulated government...

I agree, most of the populace will not have the time, but it is an open avenue for participation and being able to "watch" the game play out as it happens, assuming you have time for it. If we have "immature postings of camel spit" that's when the Ops step to moderate the channel to restore order.

On the DP pool issue, that's why I'm a fan of the CoC.

After writing that down, I think we need a section on how often the turn chats are so someone can't just delay and say "not planning on doing the chat for four more days so I'm on time." Even if the turnchat was originally planned that day.


Originally posted this in the offices thread, but realized it should go here:
Either way I still would like to go back to my idea posted above. Whatever you decide, is it possible that we can schedule turn chats well in advance (at the beginning of the term) so we can control the pace of the game. This way if you have a CoC, the President can plan more properly and if something comes up where he can't make it, the CoC gets it to a person who can make it. Or if we do a DP, the DP's do not have to go in turn and can work it out where someone will be able to play.

I think planning turn chats right after finishing one really slows down the game and does not allow us to effectively control the pace. If some kind of discussion comes up where we need more time, of course we could delay, but for the majority, the game would be controlled. You must remember one of the main problems we had was the pace of the game.

I know to whom this is directed

Are you sure? ;) There are many possibilities.

It flies in the face of everything the Democracy Game was supposed to be about.


Should minority viewpoints be accomodated? Of course they should, but not at the expense of destroying everything. The quote was directed towards people who can't let things go. I make that mistake myself sometimes, so it's also advice to myself to concede a battle or two to win the larger war. I will advocate my viewpoints, and live with the things that don't go my way -- all I can ask is for others to do the same.

Given the lack of activity for about a week in this thread a poll might be in order for turnchat vs. no turnchat.

Yeah, I think it's time we started polling all these discussion threads...

It's not really turnchat vs no turnchat, it's really "how much" turnchat power, however in this case a yes/no poll to start off with might be productive. I'm tempted to advocate that the DP doesn't need to follow instructions at all if "no" wins. :mischief:

It's not really turnchat vs no turnchat, it's really "how much" turnchat power, however in this case a yes/no poll to start off with might be productive. I'm tempted to advocate that the DP doesn't need to follow instructions at all if "no" wins. :mischief:

I agree, I feel like a "banning of turnchats" would be a sad day for the DG indeed.....

On a side note, I added my Turnchat draft on the Google Docs, with everyone who's currently a collaborator on the other documents as a collaborator for the Turnchat rules.

I agree, I feel like a "banning of turnchats" would be a sad day for the DG indeed.....
I would agree to this. Its not the demogame without the turnchats.

I posted a poll on Turnchats (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=195708)

7 days to vote, please vote now.

In the mean time, I'd appreciate more feedback on my proposed Turnchat guidelines, if anyone has anything to comment about it.

Updated Turnchat thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=195817

I present an updated version for review

Turn Chats

Turnchats are sessions held in the Demogame chatroom where the Designated Player plays the save. While playing the DP will report on events and his actions as they play out. Turnchats should be no longer then 15 turns (unless otherwise directed in the forums)

Operators
CFC Moderators shall have Operator privileges in the Demogame Chat room.

The President will also be given Operator privileges while other Elected officials will be given Half-Op privileges to help enforce order in the Chat Room.

Unless deemed necessary by chatroom operators to enforce order in the chatroom, citizens who attend the turnchat will be allowed to voice their opinions as the game plays out.

In Chat Actions/Decisions
Actions during the turnchat MAY NOT violate any forum decision/poll.

Any major events shall result in the end of the turnchat unless superceded by a decision in the forums. A major event is any large change from the normal during a turnchat, such as a declaration of war.

The DP can also call to stop the game and return to the forums if he feels there are significant advantages to doing so, such as numerous trade opertunities are available without proper forum instructions.

Decisions can be made during the turn chat may only regard minor details of play, such as which specific unit in a stack to use to attack a city, first, second, etc. If anything more major is required discussion shall return to the forums for further review.


Turnchat Instructions
Turnchat Instructions most be posted in the forums at least 24 hours before a Turnchat to allow some public review. Officials MAY NOT post vague instructions with the intent of giving them during the turn chat. Instructions must be detailed enough that should the official be absent the DP would be able to play through the save without major problems.

It is the Secretary's responcibility to announce if they are unable to post Instructions and it is the Deputy's responcibility to post when the Secretary is unable to. If neither is able to post instructions, it is their responcibility to designate someone else who can post instructions on their behalf.

The President should post the Turnchat thread about 4 days before the planned turnchat to give leaders a place to post instructions and to announce the time of the turnchat.

Public Turnchat Votes
Turnchat Votes - These votes are purely informational, requested by the DP to help them make the Uninteruptable/Minor decisions necessary during a chat. These votes are NOT legally binding as they do not represent the will of the citizenry as a whole. The DP may disregard the result of any vote if they choose, or if the result clashes with decisions made in the forums.

Examples of Uninterpretable/Minor Decisions include
- An in game event which forces the DP to make unexpected choice before continuing. -- Uninteruptable
- Specific Unit attack order (ie. which unit in a stack should be used to attack first, second, third, based on in-game battle results)
- Exploration pattern of units exploring the map
- Responding to minor military incursions of enemy countries during time of war. (ie. a few units bypassing our main force that needs to be eliminated)

Where do you get this line?
Turnchats should be no longer then 15 turns (unless otherwise directed in the forums)
I don't think we decided on that anywhere...

I'll revise that article for clarity's sake (as well as add technical information about joining, connecting, etc.) once we fully decide on the role of TCs.

I arbitrarily picked 15 turns, figured it's probably gonna be something between 10 to 20.

I'm just trying to get some more planning progress down so we know what we want to do.

Optional or not, I figure most of the points are valid.

There are two things which I feel are up for question, the part of decisions that can be made (ie. inchat polls, etc.), and a clause about when a turnchat is done.

The rest are minor things, like number of turns for a play session, timing of instructions, Operator privileges, etc.

Instead of trying to nail the language, what about a simple approach?


The Designated Player is tasked with playing the game, following instructions posted in an instruction thread.
Play must be stopped when the predetermined criteria for stopping play are met, as stated in the instruction thread.
The DP is permitted to decide any in-game issue for which there are insufficient or no instructions, using any available information.
The DP must make a detailed report of in-game actions and their results. Such a report may be via an interactive chat or in a post-session report.That's all we really need. It's easy to understand, and having few details makes legal difficulties unlikely, or at least less likely.

Not bad, but that just covers play sessions not Turnchats themselves

That's all we really need. It's easy to understand, and having few details makes legal difficulties unlikely, or at least less likely.

And unfortunately that legal bridge goes both ways...

Few details -> items up for question -> Citizen feels cheated cause he reads it differently -> Judicial reviews analyzing vague text.

Best to get a nice middle ground I think.

I am with Falcon on this one.

Not bad, but that just covers play sessions not Turnchats themselves


The DP must make a detailed report of in-game actions and their results. Such a report may be via an interactive chat or in a post-session report.

The bolded part is about turnchats. There is another piece of information vital to turnchats in my proposal but I prefer not to draw attention to it.


And unfortunately that legal bridge goes both ways...

Few details -> items up for question -> Citizen feels cheated cause he reads it differently -> Judicial reviews analyzing vague text.


Do you have a hypothetical situation in mind? I'd like to illustrate how difficult it is to "read it differently" when stated this way.

1.) DP decides to hold a turnchat poll to get an idea of what people in attendance are thinking about a certain decision. DP now can be in trouble no matter what he does. He follows the chat poll and people complain it's unconstitutional because it's not "permitted" by the constitution and is unfair since only some people are in attendance. He decides it best to go against the inchat poll since it's just informational and doesn't reflect everyone. However, an investigation ensues about the DP "violating the will of the people" since he went against a poll decision. This last one happened to Donsig I believe, because to some such a poll counts as "instruction."

2.) Player gets "one more turn syndrome" and ends up playing farther then expected (ie. 50 turns). So long as he followed posted instructions he's technically okay, because whatever came into question later on he was "charged with deciding"

3.) Chaos in the demogame chatroom requires moderation to ensure order, people get devoiced, etc. People complain their rights have been violated because the constitution does not permit officials to "ignore the will of the people".

4.) DP encounters a "major event" such as someone declaring war on us without taking it to the forums, by your wording, he might have done nothing wrong. Just because the Military Leader/Secretary forgot to post the clarifier "stop the game if someone declares war on us" since it's assumed or if the Military leader didn't get to posting instructions in time. The DP was just going with his best judgment "with insufficient or no instructions."

I could probably continue to go on given time, but I hope my point is made, you leave stuff open for interpretation, you allow stuff to be interpreted incorrectly.

The more detailed you make it the more stringent you risk making it, potentially allowing for minor violations to get thrown out of proportion or driving people off who are confused by the long documentation. However, the less it's open for interpretation.

The less detailed you make it you risk making it so relaxed people misinterpret the intent or can get away with major offenses because it's not explicitly denied in the constitution. However, it is easier to read and allows for a more relaxed gameplay.

This is why we need to be careful when developing this ruleset, I feel make it detailed, but try to make it relaxed at the same time.

I feel make it detailed, but try to make it relaxed at the same time.
This is going to sound bad, and truly isn't intended to, but ...

I'm going to enjoy seeing how that balance is made in this ruleset. It's been something I've struggled with in ever ruleset I've been a part of, and been vilified by someone upset with that balance. It's an easy thing to say, and extraordinarily difficult to actually accomplish.

With luck, you (being all the major writers of the ruleset), will avoid the curse of past ruleset (angering someone to the point they try to destroy it), and get a good balance put together. You'll need to bury your ego, because you will see rules abused and ridiculed. There is a great deal of satisfaction when you see the result of the ratification poll overwhelming in support - I hope you all get to enjoy that!

Here's my pledge - regardless of my satisfaction level with the ruleset, you'll not see me trying to change the major aspects of the rules, whining about the things I don't like or waxing eloquent about the "better times of the past", but rather trying to enjoy things as written, in the present.

-- Ravensfire

Yeah I understand it's hard to get that balance, since the two work against each other.

Honestly in previous demogames I was disinterested in such policy, constitutional discussions. I just wanted to play.

My participation this time round is to try to help things get going, and try my best to protect what I see as an essential part of the demogame, the turnchats.

Here's my pledge - regardless of my satisfaction level with the ruleset, you'll not see me trying to change the major aspects of the rules, whining about the things I don't like or waxing eloquent about the "better times of the past", but rather trying to enjoy things as written, in the present.

-- Ravensfire

Woohoo, someone caught on!
One down, 50 to go if we're lucky!
:thanx: :cheers: :high5: :xmascheers: :band:

Do you have a hypothetical situation in mind? I'd like to illustrate how difficult it is to "read it differently" when stated this way.

Not that this example has anything to do with Turnchats, but it is a good example of "someone reading it differently". Only in this case, the law is stately plainly enough, yet you still bent it to suit your needs and wants.

Take a look! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4872445&postcount=25)

Not that this example has anything to do with Turnchats, but it is a good example of "someone reading it differently". Only in this case, the law is stately plainly enough, yet you still bent it to suit your needs and wants.

Take a look! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4872445&postcount=25)

No, that law was very clearly stated and I interpreted it 100% correctly. Others chose to read in things which weren't there.

And it is a mischaracterization to say my needs and wants had anything to do with it. The issue was and still is unnecessary delays. Delays are not fun. Stopping sessions early to make no-brainer decisions isn't fun, especially when you also have to wait another 3 days to play the next session because of people who don't visit the forum any more often than that.

Try another example which was not clear. :p